Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Prosecution For Non-Examination Of Material Witness: Patna High Court Acquits Life Convicts

A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh observed, “in the facts of the present case we find that the persons named in the FIR who helped the informant to take out the deceased from the pond and who would have listened to the oral dying declaration if made and could be a material independent witness to this case if not withheld. Thereby, adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution in this case. Hence, non-examination of the material witness who has been withheld by the prosecution caused prejudice to the appellants.”

In the given case, the appellants were found guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In the event of failure to pay the fine, they were also liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

According to the prosecution's account, the incident occurred when the informant's elder brother went out to relieve himself by the road. Upon hearing his brother's cries, the informant rushed to the scene and witnessed the appellants, armed with knives, attacking his brother under the illumination of a torchlight. The appellants, upon noticing the informant, threatened him as well, compelling him to flee towards the village, raising an alarm. The appellants callously threw the informant's brother into the water and escaped. With the help of fellow villagers, the victim was rescued from the water and rushed to the hospital for medical treatment. Tragically, the victim succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. Distraught, the informant promptly reported the incident to the police station, asserting that the appellants, acting in concert, had fatally assaulted his brother with a knife.

A case was registered, and following a trial, the Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty, leading to their conviction and sentencing. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the appellants appealed to the High Court seeking redress.

One of the primary issues before the Court was whether the non-examination of material witnesses, namely Rahul Paswan, Ghamri Ansari, and Sanju Singh, who had assisted the informant in rescuing the deceased from the pond and were alleged to have been present during the deceased's oral testimony, had caused prejudice to the appellants.

The High Court asserted, “In light of the foregoing analysis and the issues raised herein, this Court is compelled to scrutinize the prosecution's case with meticulous attention. The absence of any mention of changes in the clothing of the deceased, despite the presence of multiple stab injuries, poses a formidable challenge to the prosecution's narrative. The inquest report, testimonies of witnesses, and the post-mortem findings collectively raise serious doubts regarding the veracity and completeness of the evidence presented.”

The Court reiterated that the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. The inconsistencies regarding the condition of the deceased's clothing and the lack of cut marks on it created substantial ambiguity. Without concrete evidence supporting the presence of cut marks on the clothing, a fundamental gap in the prosecution's case was evident.

Regarding the involvement of three individuals, Rahul Paswan, Ghamri Ansari, and Sanju Singh, who assisted in removing the deceased from the pond and could have been key witnesses to the dying declaration, the Court noted that their non-examination cast doubt on the prosecution's credibility. However, the Court clarified that if there was already overwhelming evidence, the non-examination of additional witnesses might not be significant. In such cases, the Court must assess the value of the existing evidence and consider whether the witnesses in question were available but not brought forward.

The Court further said, “However, if overwhelming evidence has already been presented, the non-examination of additional witnesses may not be significant. In such cases, the Court must scrutinise the value of the evidence already presented and consider whether the witness in question was available but withheld.”

In light of these legal positions and the findings on the issues formulated, the Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, rendering the convictions unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal appeals, leading to the acquittal of the appellants in this murder case.

Counsel/s For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Abhishek, Advocate

Counsel/s For the Respondent : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP

LL Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 126

Case Title : Shankar Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar

Case No. : Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 325 of 2017

Click here to Read /Download Judgment