Minor Discrepancies, Hostile Witnesses Can't Derail Conviction: Rajasthan HC Upholds S.324 IPC Conviction, Reduces Sentence After 33 Years

While hearing appeals against conviction orders for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (section 324, IPC) Rajasthan High Court held that minor discrepancies in the cross-examination owing to natural lapse of memory did not falsify the prosecution case.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that hostility of witnesses, which was common in criminal trials, was a clear indication of them being influenced but that could not operate as an advantage to the accused and negate an otherwise cogent, consistent and trustworthy evidence on record.

The counsel for the appellants had put forth multiple arguments, challenging the conviction, which included hostility of some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution; discrepancies in the testimonies of the family members of the victim; and lack of established motive.

After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected all the arguments and made certain observations.

It was held that memory faded with the passage of time. Since the incident took place in 1982, and the family members were examined in the Court after about 4 years in 1996, minor discrepancies regarding the attack did not falsify the prosecution case.

On the point of hostility of prosecution witnesses, it was held that such hostility could not nullify an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence.

“The Court is required to assess the totality of the evidence and separate the grain from the chaff. Where other material on record, including the testimony of reliable witnesses and corroborative circumstances, clearly establishes the commission of the offence by the appellants, the prosecution case cannot be rejected merely because a few witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements.”

Furthermore, the Court opined that absence of proof of motive did not, by itself, discredit the prosecution case in light of otherwise clear and convincing evidence establishing the guilt.

It was observed that even though motive was relevant, it was not a sine qua non for conviction if there was direct or circumstantial evidence that undisputedly reflected appellant's guilt.

In this background, while the conviction was sustained by the Court, the prayer seeking leniency in quantum of punishment was accepted. The Court considered the long-drawn litigation for 33 years; appellants' young age during commission of offence; them being first-time offenders, and the offences not being punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

“For over 33 years, they have suffered the ignominy, humiliation and pangs of investigation, trial and uncertainty of their fate… Asking them at this belated stage to furnish bond and/or security for future good conduct would be pushing a lost cause with paper work for all concerned. It would be tilting at windmills with no purpose, and yet, unnecessarily burdening the appellants with expenses and further loss of time.”

Accordingly, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appeals were disposed of.

Title: Babu Lal & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Click Here To Read/Download Order