"Testimony Of Sole Eyewitness Not Truthful": Allahabad HC Sets Aside Convict's Life Sentence In A 23-Yr-Old Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday set aside the life sentence of a murder convict in a case that dates back to the year 1998, after concluding that the testimony of the sole eye witness in the case isn't truthful on a material particular and is inconsistent as well.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain, in its analysis of the facts, circumstances, and evidence adduced in the case found several discrepancies in the testimony of the PW­1 (informant and brother of the deceased), who is the only eyewitness of the incident and thus, it didn't find it safe to rely on his testimony to uphold the conviction of the appellant.

The case in brief 

Accused Satya Prakash has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj in September 2008, convicting him \ under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

It was alleged in the FIR that on June, 28 1998, at about 9 pm, the informant Harish Chandra (PW­1) and his brother Phool Chandra (the deceased) were sitting at the door of their house, when Satya Prakash (the appellant) along with others came armed with country-made pistols.

Further, on the exhortation of Kanhaiya (who died during trial), the appellant (Satya Prakash) fired from his country-made pistol at the deceased, with a view to taking his life, which hit the deceased and thereafter, they ran away.

PW­1 (informant and brother of the deceased) filed a written statement by adding that his brother, Phool Chandra (the deceased), had been taken to the hospital and after getting him admitted in the hospital, the informant had come to lodge the FIR.

Initially, the case was registered under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC but, later, the case was converted to one punishable under Section 302, 504, 506 IPC.

Court's observations and analysis

In his testimony, PW­1 had stated that the deceased was rushed to the hospital for treatment; there he was advised to be taken to Kanpur but, on way to Kanpur, he died. However, the Court noted that PW­4, the son of the deceased, had stated something different about what happened after the incident.

Essentially, PW­4 had stated that within half an hour of the incident, the police had arrived, they had lifted the body of his father and he also accompanied the body to the police station and from there the body was taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead.

Significantly, on the other hand, PW­8, the investigating officer, stated that he had received information of the incident through RT set; and that he arrived at the spot without any delay and saw the body at the spot.

"This suggests that the deceased was dead on the spot," the Court opined as it found that different versions had been put by different witnesses as to what had happened after the incident.

The Court also referred to the testimony of PW­5, the doctor, who conducted post­mortem and admitted that the nature of the injuries were such that the deceased would have died instantaneously and could not have survived for long without medical support.

Against this backdrop, the Court further observed thus:

"No evidence, either documentary or oral, of any kind in respect of treatment or admission of the deceased in an injured condition in the Hospital has been brought on record to demonstrate that the deceased in an injured condition was taken to the hospital for treatment or medical attention."

Further, the Court also observed that PW1 had made material improvements during his cross examination regarding the incident and since no justification came from his side, the Court observed thus:

"Be that as it may, the upshot of the discussion is that the testimony of PW­1 having not been found truthful on a material particular and inconsistent as well, in the sense that it improves upon the earlier statement, in respect of the manner in which the incident occurred, it is not wholly reliable and this by itself is sufficient to extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused­appellant."

Significantly, the Court also noted that the instant case is based on the testimony of a solitary eye witness, who has himself not suffered any injury, and the testimony does not find corroboration from other independent evidence.

"At this stage, we may notice that though the prosecution had also examined PW­4 as a witness who saw the accused running away from the spot, but this deposition of his is at variance with his statement under section 161 CrPC where he did not state having seen the accused running away. We, therefore, do not propose to rely on the testimony of PW­4 to lend credence to what PW­1 deposed," the Court said as it allowed the appeal and the appellant was acquitted of the charge for which he had been tried and convicted.

Case title - Satya Prakash v.­ State of U.P.
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 35

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment