Conviction Can Be Based Solely On Credible Testimony Of Police Witness: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife, holding that there was no reason to doubt the evidence of the police officer who had seen the appellant hacking the deceased with a weapon, merely because he was a police witness or a chance witness.The Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar held, “In...
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife, holding that there was no reason to doubt the evidence of the police officer who had seen the appellant hacking the deceased with a weapon, merely because he was a police witness or a chance witness.
The Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar held, “In the present case, we have got no reason to doubt the evidence of PW-5 regarding seeing the incident of the appellant hacking his wife with a dao. There is no whisper or any enmity, ulterior motive or reason given by the appellant, for PW-5 to have given any false evidence.”
“Just because there might have been some other eye-witness to the crime and who were not made Prosecution Witnesses or who are not made to give evidence in the Court, we don't have any reason to doubt the truthfulness of the evidence given by PW-5,” the Court further observed.
The ruling was made in a petition filed by one Modon Urang challenging the judgment passed in a Sessions Case whereby the Trial Court had convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000.
The case arose from a 2017 FIR, in which the informant, who was the brother of the deceased, stated that the appellant had hacked his wife with a dao (sharp, heavy cutting tool for cutting wood). The appellant's wife was the elder sister of the informant.
The appellant argued that PW-5, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Dibrugarh Police Station, was the only eyewitness and, since he was a police officer, his evidence could not be the sole ground for conviction. It was also argued that though the incident took place in a tea garden where bonus was being paid and a market was set up nearby, no private or independent witness was examined. The appellant further contended that the seized dao had not been sent to the FSL, which was fatal to the prosecution case.
The Court, after considering the evidence, rejected the argument that the prosecution case was vitiated because PW-2's statement under Section 161 CrPC had not been reduced into writing. Referring to Sections 161 and 162 CrPC, the Court observed, “The above provisions of section 161 and 162 Cr.P.C, thus, does not make it mandatory for any statement made by an accused or a witness, to be reduced in writing. In any event, the record shows that the PW-2 had been examined orally by the Police under section 161 Cr.P.C.”
Holding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
The Court also recommended that the Assam State Legal Services Authority and the concerned District Legal Services Authority, “should enquire and take a decision if the benefits of Section 357A Cr.P.C can be provided to them. If they are deserving and can be provided benefits under Section 357A Cr.P.C, the authorities should keep in mind that some portion of the benefit may be kept in fixed deposits till they come of age, while the rest may be used for their present upkeep.”
Case Title: Modon Urang v. State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/96/2022