Minor Contradictions Or Improvement To Trivial Points In Testimony Not Ground To Reject Evidence; Some Variances Are Natural: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently held that minor contradictions, inconsistency or improvement to trivial points by a witness, could not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.

A Division Bench of Justices Sunil Kumar Panwar and AM Badar remarked,

"Some variances are natural from the mouth of the witnesses who were deposing after lapse of a year or that may also depend on the loss of memory. There is no reason to raise doubt the presence of prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence."

It was observed that in an act of unlawful assembly, it is immaterial as to who caught hold of the deceased, in what direction the accused persons surrounded the deceased, and to which of the accused assaulted.

Two appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The conviction has been pronounced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. One of the convicts has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the rest of the convicts/appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC.

Advocate Jitendra Kumar Giri, appearing for the appellants made a three-fold submission: Firstly, the relationship between the deceased and the appellants were cordial before the occurrence. Secondly, the Trial Court has relied upon the evidence of PW-1, who is a veteran criminal and accused in several murder cases. Thirdly, the medical evidence in respect of the death of the deceased does not align with the ocular evidence deposed on behalf of the prosecution.

The Court noted that an accused person whose case falls under Section 149 IPC cannot take a defence that he did not with his hand, commit the offence in the prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly or for the members of the assembly. He knew that such offence was likely to be committed. It is not necessary in such cases that all the persons forming the unlawful assembly must do some overt act. Where the accused had assembled, taken arms weapons, and were parties to the assault then the prosecution is not obliged to prove each specific overt act was done by each of the accused. In such circumstances, every member of unlawful assembly is responsible for an offence committed by any member or other members in the prosecution of the common object of such assembly.

"It is trustworthy evidence that Tribhuan Pandey fired from close range on the order of accused Chandradeo Pandey and all the other accused persons were standing with country made fire arms," it added.

The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Parsuram Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 10

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order