Brief Facts
- The Appellant is accused for commission of offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC.
- After the verbal altercation, the accused persons assaulted the victim with tree branches which resulted in his death. The trial court after appreciating the evidence acquitted the accused, however, the acquittal was reversed by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the eye witness can be disregarded due to minor contradictions in the case when it was recorded after 4 years gap from the date of occurrence of incident?
Held
- The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant and dismissed the appeal.
- On a combined reading of the depositions made by the eye witnesses, it is clear that these do not suffer from any major contradictions. As has been noticed by the High Court, one must bear in mind that the occurrence has taken place on 14.9.1992 whereas the witnesses were making statements in the court on 11.12.1996. Since there is a gap of more than four years, minor contradictions or variations are normal. The Trial Court has erred in basing the acquittal of the accused on these immaterial inconsistencies. When factum of dispute between the parties was even admitted by the accused in their statement, recorded under section 313 Cr.PC.
- Four different versions are coming from the side of the defence. Firstly, the deceased had died due to fall from the ‘thara’ of his house, secondly, from the ‘danga’ of his house, thirdly, from the ‘danga of the khalian’ and fourthly from the ‘danga of the accused’. Such inherent contradictions cannot result in acquitting the accused.
- In view of the clinching evidence produced by the prosecution, in the form of independent witnesses, in our view, no error has been committed by the High Court in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. No material evidence was either misread or ignored.
Relevant Para No.
- 8, 10, 11
