Delay In Recording Testimony Of Key Witness Raises Doubts Over Its Credibility: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

While hearing a case wherein the witness had testified after a year claiming he had "seen" the men booked for murder, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that "delay" in providing crucial evidence raises doubts on the veracity of the star witness's testimony. 

Noting that there were no direct eye witnesses nor were the alleged assailants identified immediately, the court observed that the key evidence which was circumstancial could be easily challenged. 

A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was hearing the bail application filed by two men booked for the murder of the complainant's father.

The complainant argued that while his father was sleeping at home, two individuals came with their faces covered and brutally attacked his father which ultimately led to his father's death. While they were fleeing, a man (star witness) who was passing in front of the complainant's house witnessed the assailants and recognized them to be the accused.

While perusing the records of the case, the High Court highlighted that no individual was named by the complainant in the FIR nor was their identity disclosed. The court observed that the complainant also did not express "any suspicion" against any individual or mention "any enmity or rivalry" with anyone. It further said that the statements by the star witness, who had claimed to seeing the accused flee after the attack, were made one year after the alleged incident.

The court noted that witness had stated that he had informed the deceased's family of the information at that time. However, neither complainant nor anyone in the family forward this information to the police "immediately after the incident", it said. The Court also found that no specific details identifying the accused's motorcycle, or any other concrete evidence was provided by the star witness.

In this background, the Court opined that in light of the statements of the star witness being recorded one year after the incident, absence of such crucial fact during investigation "weakened" the case of the prosecution.

"The delay in providing crucial evidence creates prima facie doubts about the accuracy and veracity of his ( star witness's) testimony," it added. 

It further observed that there was "no direct eyewitness testimony" regarding the murder, and the identity of the assailants was "neither immediately known nor disclosed".

Noting that the key evidence appeared to be "circumstantial"–based on the star witness's statements which were made later–the court said that the same could "easily be challenged".

It further observed that the complainant did not express any suspicion or pre-existing enmity towards anyone, "which prima facie indicates a lack of direct motive connected to the incident". 

Furthermore, the Court referred to the alleged motive of the accused in light of the fact that the deceased had murdered the accused's father in 2012 and was released on bail in 2018; and so the accused allegedly murdered the deceased to take "revenge". However, the high court held that the motive stemming from an event in 2012, prima facie appeared to be speculative, distant in time and difficult to conclusively establish since the key witness came forth only after one year after the incident.

Taking note of the material, the arguments made and the fact that trial is like to take time, the high court without going into the merits, allowed the bail application.

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 312

Click Here To Read/Download Order