1995 Murder Case | 'Prosecution Not Obliged To Answer Every Hypothesis Of Defence': Allahabad HC Overturns Acquittal, Sentences 3 To LI

A bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan said that murders are not committed without prior notice to anyone. Thus, those who appear to be natural witnesses may not be labelled as false or planted witnesses.

The Court added that even if they are related to the deceased, their testimony should not be brushed aside when it is reliable, trustworthy, and has a ring of truth.

The division bench made these observations while dealing with a state appeal filed against the acquittal of 6 accused in connection with the murder of one Vijay Kumar. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Before the High Court, the state submitted that the Trial Court, in its judgment of acquittal, had given much importance and weightage to minor contradictions emerging in the testimony of two witnesses of fact, the natural witnesses of the crime.

The state counsel argued that no prosecution witnesses could be expected to give a parrot-like video graphic account of the incident, thus, some minor contradictions are bound to occur here and there, but if the core of the prosecution story remains intact, then the accused persons may not be entitled for benefit of any doubt.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused persons argued that the deceased was a known criminal, and his death appeared to be the result of a blind murder by unknown persons. Still, the same was attributed to the accused based solely on prior enmity.

It was also submitted that the testimonies of the two prosecution eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) contain significant contradictions on material points, which cast doubt on their credibility as eye-witnesses.

Having heard the arguments advanced by counsels for both sides, the Court, at the outset, noted merely because witnesses are close relatives of the victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded.

“Relationship with the deceased is not a factor that affects credibility of a witness, more so, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent person. However, in such a case Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out, whether it is cogent and credible evidence,” the Court observed.

Regarding the contradictions identified by the trial court in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2, the High Court noted that even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details, which may not be related to the core of the prosecution case.

The Court added that their evidence, therefore, must be appreciated, keeping in mind the power of observation, retention, reproduction, human conduct, and incidents occurring in the ordinary course of nature.

Regarding the specifics of this case, the court noted that P.W.1 and P.W.2's evidence was recorded after about three years of the incident. Thus, the Court considered that being rustic villagers, minor contradictions were bound to occur in their statements/ evidence.

Against this backdrop, when the Court examined their testimonies regarding the alleged incident, the HC found no material contradiction in their statements regarding the place the prosecution witnesses saw the occurrence.

“It is also to be recalled that in a case of heinous crime, the witnesses generally do not remember with absolute ........what had exactly happened at other places or where they were standing and their main concentration and focus is on the incident or to say commission of crime and thus, in our considered opinion the Trial Court has not considered this aspect of the matter in the right perspective and has given much importance to this minor and insignificant contradiction,” the Court remarked.

Thus, the court concluded that even if certain minor embellishments and contradictions emerged in their testimony, the evidence of these two witnesses as a whole was proved by their trustworthy evidence that such an incident had taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution.

The Court also added that even if an investigating officer has committed any irregularity and it does not demolish the prosecution's case, as proved by reliable eyewitnesses, the same alone may not be sufficient to demolish the prosecution's case.

“The fate of a criminal case may not be left on the conduct of an Investigating Officer. Thus, a criminal case is to be seen in the background of the evidence of the eye witnesses who are claiming themselves to have witnessed the occurrence,” the bench noted.

Further, the Court also discarded the finding of the trial court that there was conflict in ocular and medical evidence, as it noted that this finding was not substantiated by the evidence available on record.

Furthermore, flagging other perversities of the judgment of the trial court, the High Court concluded that it was proved that the accused persons had participated in the 'marpeet' and had surrounded the deceased. Their manner of running away from the scene of the crime clearly revealed that they had formed an unlawful assembly. They were fully aware of the common object of such unlawful assembly, which was none other than to cause the death of the deceased Vijay.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the State was allowed, and the surviving respondents no.2, 3, and 4, namely Ambika, Rajendra @ Manney, and Sadhey Pasi, were convicted of committing an offence under section 302 read with 149 IPC.

Finding their case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases, the Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with Rs. 20,000/- each as a fine.

The period of incarceration already undergone by the respondents/accused persons, in this case, shall be adjusted in their period of sentence, the Court added.