S.60 Indian Evidence Act | Person Who Has Seen Or Heard A Fact Can Be Said To Provide Direct Evidence: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the murder conviction of a constable, emphasising the reliability of direct evidence under Section 60 of the Evidence Act. The Court clarified that testimony from an eyewitness who directly observed or heard a fact constitutes direct evidence.

The division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary noted, “Informant is a direct eye witness to the incidence and cannot be said to be hearsay, for the reason that he had heard the sound of firing. His testimony is corroborated by the attending circumstance of the appellant being arrested soon after the incidence.”

“Under Section 60 of the Evidence Act, a person who has seen or heard a fact, can be said to be direct evidence. It has been deposed by P.W. 3 that appellant immediately after the incidence stated to him that deceased had refused leave, therefore, he killed him. This will be relevant both under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and will also be extra judicial confession of the appellant,” the division bench added.

In this case, the appellant, a constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion, was on duty with the informant and three other constables. Upon hearing gunfire, the informant observed that the appellant was missing and saw him leaving the deceased's room, where the deceased lay dead in a pool of blood with 11 empty cartridges nearby. Following the investigation, a case under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered, leading to the appellant's conviction in the trial court. The criminal appeal was subsequently filed, challenging this conviction.

The appellant argued that no direct eyewitness existed for the incident, making the prosecution's case reliant on circumstantial evidence. Alternatively, the state countered, asserting that the case does not rely on circumstantial evidence, as a direct eyewitness is present.

The Court expounded on Section 6 of the Evidence Act, emphasising that Illustration (a) to this Section states:

A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the bystanders at the beating or so shortly before or after it, as to form part of the same transaction, is a relevant fact.

The Court noted that the FIR was lodged on the same day as the incident and pointed out that, according to the seizure list, blood-stained plaster, eleven fired cartridges of an INSAS rifle, and one loaded magazine were seized from the room of the deceased on the same night.

The Court observed, “The Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) has given the description of place of occurrence to be in the room of deceased- Sunil Soren (S.I.) from where 11 round fired cartridges and INSAS rifle loaded magazine were seized. The testimony of Investigating Officer corroborates the testimony of informant (P.W. 3) that incidence took place in the room of the deceased.”

In light of these facts, the Court concluded, “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance and in view of the wholly reliable and formidable testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, I do not find any infirmity in the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act,” and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.”

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Jay Prakash Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 172

Click Here To read Judgement