Testimony Of Interested Witness Has To Be Examined With Extra Care And Caution, Reiterates Allahabad High Court

While stressing that during the trial of a case, the testimonies of the interested witnesses have to be examined with extra care and caution, the Allahabad High Court today dismissed an appeal filed by the informant of the case challenging the acquittal order of the trial court in an attempt to murder case.

Finding serious discrepancies in the statements of the interested witnesses in the case, the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi upheld the October 2014 judgment and order passed by the ASJ, Mahoba acquitting two accused charged for offences under Sections 387, 307/34, 452, 323/34 and 427 IPC.

The case in brief

Essentially, the informant/appellant gave a report in the Police Station that when he was going to his home, Hariram Prajapati (the accused respondent No. 2) and Dhirendra Singh (the accused-respondent No. 3) caught hold of the informant and they assaulted the informant by but of a gun, kicks and fists and said that they would set him free only when he pays Rs. 10,000/-.

It was further alleged that they threatened to kill him with a gun and country-made pistols. Upon finding an opportunity, the informant ran towards his home and that is when another accused (Dhanni) fired towards him with a 315 bore country made pistol with the intention to kill him.

However, the shot missed the informant's temple and he had a narrow escape. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly entered the informant's house and assaulted the informant's mother and sister with kicks, fists and shoes and destroyed the house-hold goods. Further, the accused threatened that if the informant makes a report of it, it will not be good for him. 

On the aforesaid allegation, a case was registered and after the investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 387, 307/37, 452, 323/34, 427 IPC was submitted in the Court against the accused-respondents. After the trial, the Court acquitted them of the charges.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that in the instant case, the prosecution primarily examined the 3 witnesses, PW-1, 2, and 4, who are informants, his mother, and his sister respectively.

Further, the Court also found the following discrepancies in the testimonies of interested witnesses, and therefore, it held that prosecution witnesses do not appear to be trustworthy:

• The testimony of the informant/PW-1 indicated that the accused had threatened him to lodge an FIR and therefore, the Court noted that the conduct of PW-1 in going alone to lodge FIR immediately after having been threatened by the accused persons was unnatural.
• PW-1 had alleged that the accused persons had hit him with but of the gun, stick, and kicks but the same did not leave marks or cause bleeding. The accused had not hit him hard but had hit him slowly. PW-3 who conducted a medical examination of PW-1 did not find any injury on the person of PW-1.
• PW-1 has stated that the medical examination of his sister was also conducted on the same day whereas the sister PW-4 had stated that she was not medically examined. No report of PW-4 is available on record and no statement in this regard has been made by PW-3.
• PW-1 had stated that he had gone to the Police Station alone, however, PW-2 stated that her daughter had also gone to the Police Station with her.
• The statement of PW-4 (informant's sister) that the accused persons hit her mother with but of country-made pistol and thrown away the goods of the shop and take away the jewelry and other articles of the marriage of PW-4 and her sister-in-law was not corroborated by the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 and appears to be false and unnatural.
• PW-2 had stated that the accused broke down the goods when the informant had gone to the Police Station for lodging a report, however, the breakage of goods was also mentioned in the report lodged by the Informant, which indicated, as the court noted, that the entire prosecution story was planned, concocted and fabricated, else this fact could not have been mentioned report.

In view of this, holding that the Court below had thoroughly examined the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and finding that upon scrutiny of the statements of the PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4, 8 serious discrepancies had come to light, the HC concluded that the appellant had failed to make out any ground for admission of the appeal and thus, the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Case title - Nokhe Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 116

Click Here To Read/Download Order