'Inconsistent Exaggerations & Contradictions': Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty, Acquits Two In Multiple Murder Case

The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted two accused persons in a multiple murder case, setting aside their conviction and death sentence, holding that where eyewitness testimony is riddled with “incoherent, inconsistent exaggerations and contradictions,” it would be unsafe to sustain conviction. The Court emphasised that when identification of the accused and their participation in the crime remains uncertain, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan was hearing a death reference along with a criminal appeal arising from conviction under Sections 147, 148, 458/149 and 302/149 IPC, where the appellants had been sentenced to death along with other terms of imprisonment.Senior Advocate B.M. Tripathi, appearing for the appellants, assailed the prosecution case on multiple grounds. He argued that the prosecution had suppressed the earliest version of the incident, as the informant admitted to having lodged a report on the night of the occurrence (25.09.2004), whereas the FIR on record was dated 26.09.2004. It was further contended that despite specific allegations against several accused persons, the prosecution failed to invoke Section 319 CrPC against those not charge-sheeted, while selectively relying on the same evidence to convict the appellants. It was submitted that identification of the accused was doubtful given the time of occurrence, alleged covering of faces by assailants, and the admitted conduct of key witnesses (particularly the informant) who had hidden during the incident. The plea of alibi raised by the appellants was also stated to have been ignored by the trial court.On the other hand, the State contended that the prosecution had established a consistent and corroborated account of a brutal incident involving four murders carried out in a “daredevil fashion.” It was argued that minor inconsistencies or defects in the charge would not vitiate the trial unless prejudice was shown. The State relied on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to argue that the manner of assault stood corroborated. It was further submitted that the incident took place on a moonlit night in a rural setting, where identification of known persons would be natural and reliable.Examining the evidence in detail, the Court noted that while the prosecution described a gruesome incident involving multiple murders with a common pattern of victims being tied and beheaded, the credibility of eyewitnesses was deeply suspect. The Court found that key witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7), who formed the backbone of the prosecution case, gave highly detailed accounts of the incident but their cross-examination revealed serious inconsistencies. For instance, witnesses who claimed to have seen the entire incident admitted to having hidden out of fear or being at significant distances, rendering their ability to observe and identify doubtful. The Court also noted contradictions regarding whether the assailants had covered their faces, and the improbability of detailed identification in such circumstances.The testimony of the informant (P.W.7) was found particularly unreliable, as his claim of being an eyewitness was contradicted by his admission that he had hidden for nearly an hour during the incident. The Court also found merit in the contention regarding suppression of the earliest version of the FIR, drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution in light of settled law. Further, the Court found that other witnesses either did not witness the incident or failed to establish specific overt acts attributable to the appellants. The Court noted:“Incoherent, inconsistent exaggerations and contradictions seems to be the hallmark of the evidence of the purported eyewitnesses and when the identification of the appellants as members of the unlawful assembly and of their participation in the murders has a sense of incertitude, the benefit of doubt has to accrue in favour of the appellants. The impugned judgment having not considered the finer nuances of he evidence of the witnesses becomes erroneous in law…”In these circumstances, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that the identification of the appellants and their participation in the unlawful assembly “has a sense of incertitude,” and that the evidence on record could not sustain a conviction, much less a death sentence. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Sanjay Yadav & Anr.Case No.: Death Reference No. 01 of 2020Appearance: Mr. Pankaj Kumar for the State. Senior Advocate Mr. B.M. Tripathi for the accused.Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Inconsistent Exaggerations & Contradictions': Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty, Acquits Two In Multiple Murder Case

Rushil Batra

Tags

﻿'Inconsistent Exaggerations & Contradictions': Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty, Acquits Two In Multiple Murder Case

Rushil Batra

Tags

'Inconsistent Exaggerations & Contradictions': Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Death Penalty, Acquits Two In Multiple Murder Case