'Prosecution Cannot Rely On Witness For One Part Of Case While Ignoring Other': Patna High Court Acquits Murder Accused

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha was hearing an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2017 and order of sentence dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Muzaffarpur. The appellants had been convicted under Sections 304/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced to four years and six months' rigorous imprisonment respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. They had, however, been acquitted of the charges under Sections 341/34, 324/34 and 307/34 IPC.

The prosecution case arose from an altercation on 16.07.2013 concerning the proposed marriage of the son of appellant Karpuri Thakur. It was alleged that the appellants, armed with lathi, danda, rod and khanti, assaulted Dinesh Thakur. When Sanjay Thakur and Bibha Devi attempted to rescue him, they were also allegedly assaulted. Dinesh Thakur was taken to hospital but died on the way.

The defence relied upon a counter-case arising from the same occurrence and the injuries sustained by the accused side.

The High Court found this circumstance material, particularly since the prosecution had not satisfactorily explained the injuries suffered by the accused. The Court also found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence regarding the time and place of occurrence, the presence of the deceased, and the participation of the appellants. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place late at night, while the informant himself stated that it was dark. The Court noted that no satisfactory source of light had emerged to explain how the assailants could have been identified or specific overt acts attributed to them.

The Court also noted that no injury reports of the injured persons from either side had been brought on record as part of the proved medical evidence. Further, despite the alleged use of several weapons, there was no convincing recovery connecting those weapons with the fatal injuries. Dealing with the prosecution's reliance on hostile and other witnesses, the Court observed:

“The evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto. The Court may rely upon that part of the evidence which is found to be truthful and corroborated by other material on record. At the same time, the prosecution cannot rely upon a witness for the purpose of proving one part of the case while ignoring the other part which creates a reasonable doubt, without assigning a satisfactory reason. The criminal court has to assess the entire evidentiary texture of the case.”

The Bench further held that the existence of a counter-case could not be brushed aside and that the prosecution had failed to present a clear and consistent account of the fatal assault. It also noted that the trial court had itself acquitted the appellants of several other charges, and that the same evidentiary foundation could not be selectively relied upon for the conviction under Section 304/34 without addressing the infirmities which had led to those acquittals.

Ultimately, the Court held that the cumulative effect of the contradictions, darkness, uncertainty regarding the place of occurrence, hostile witnesses, counter-case, unexplained injuries and absence of injury reports created reasonable doubt. Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted them.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Purshottam Kumr, Advocate, Ms. Saloni Kumari, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP