Brief Facts
- Complainant, father of deceased filed a FIR upon discovering his son’s dead body in a forest, 150 meters west of Government Inter College, alleging therein that: on 31.10.2001, at about 21:00 Hours, the deceased was with his friends Govind and Ravi Bangali (later identified as Ravi Mandal); Govind, accused, had been influencing his son to choose a wrong path and therefore, he suspects that these persons have killed his son and concealed his body in the forest. Later, on 10.11.2001, PW-1 gave a written information to the police stating that it was not Govind but Shabbir who along with Ravi and one Mazhar Khan were with the deceased on that fateful night. During the course of investigation police arrested the Appellant and recovered country made pistol and live cartridge from Shabbir and a Knife from Ravi Mandal.
- The Appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC which was later upheld by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of a chance witness could be relied upon?
- Whether the delayed disclosure of information by an eye witness of the incident without any plausible explanation makes such testimony unreliable?
- Whether the circumstances taken cumulatively create a doubt as to whether the present case was quintessential case of a blind murder?
Held
- The Appellants were acquitted as the evidences were found to be not confidence inspiring to uphold the conviction.
- There was no disclosure in the FIR as to how the body of the deceased was found. The FIR of the case was lodged at 0730 Hours on 01.11.2001 after the dead body of informant’s son was found in a forest and according to the testimony of police witnesses, it was the informant who gave information to the police about his son’s dead body being found in the forest. Whereas, according to PW-1 the police informed him that his son’s dead body has been found in the forest and thereafter, he went to the spot, brought the body to the police station and then lodged the report.
- The prosecution story which develops later was completely absent in the FIR even though it was lodged by father of the deceased who, as per his deposition, was having information about it. All of this would give rise to a suspicion as to whether the later improvements in the story were to create link evidence with the help of newly introduced witnesses. It is therefore clear that there was a deliberate attempt to multiply the witnesses.
- Initially, the motive for the crime was enmity with Govind. But, later, when Govind was found not alive, he was replaced by Shabbir as an accused. All these circumstances taken cumulatively create a doubt in our mind as to whether it is a quintessential case of a blind murder (i.e. taking place at a secluded place in the darkness of night where no one could witness the crime), therefore, to solve the case, while groping for witnesses, the prosecution story kept evolving, either on the basis of information received from time to time, or on guess work emanating from strong suspicion, or police suggestions. Thus, this is a case where the testimony of prosecution witnesses, regardless of they having no proven grudge against the accused, was required to be strictly scrutinized with a degree of circumspection to ascertain whether it is credible, reliable/trustworthy and truthful, before basing a conviction thereupon.
- Similarly, PW 5 was only a chance witness. Reliance was placed on the judgments passed in the case of Rajesh Yadav & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200 and Jarnail Singh & Others v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719, and it was held that deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded.
- The courts below accepted the same as gospel truth, without testing it on the anvil of settled legal principles, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. We, therefore, conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused near the spot at the relevant time.
Relevant Para No.
- 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30