When Prosecution Case Solely Rests On Police Witnesses, They Must Be Subject To Strict Scrutiny: MP HC Sets Aside Conviction In 2016 Rioting Case

While setting aside the conviction in a rioting case from 2016 where police authorities themselves were the complainants, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has iterated that when a prosecution case rests solely upon police witnesses, their testimonies will be subjected to strict scrutiny.The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh noted that omissions and contradictions that crop up in the statement of police witnesses during the chief examination and cross-examination will create a cloud of suspicion in cases where the police personnel themselves are the injured complainants.“ Here, where the prosecution case is fully dependent upon police witnesses and other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and even the police witnesses are not able to mention the name of all accused persons and they are containing contradictions…on material points, it cannot be safe to rely upon the prosecution case…to convict the accused persons”, the bench sitting at Indore observed.BackgroundIt was argued that seventeen appellants were convicted by the trial court at Sendhwa for offenses falling under Sections 148, 332/149 & 332 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo varying sentences of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. It was stated that the accused had allegedly assembled before the police station in protest against not permitting to play DJ during the Ganesh Festival procession and threatened that they would not allow any goats to be cut on Eid Festival as revenge. It was further stated that a crowd gathered and began pelting stones at the police which resulted in injuries for the Head Constable and another constable who was there in the police station. As per the prosecution version, the windows of the police station were also damaged by the sudden onslaught.Court's ObservationsThe High Court, after perusing the lower court records, noted that the Head Constable himself who filed the F.I.R. has supported the prosecution story to an extent in his testimony.It was noted that certain contradictions and omissions arose during cross-examination about the damage that occurred to the station property and similar discrepancies were noticed in the testimony of another injured constable who was examined. There were also contradictions in the versions regarding the number of persons who gathered in front of the police station and their details, it was noted.Many other police officers who deposed were declared hostile and did not contribute substantially to bolster the prosecution story, the court pointed out. The court observed that videos and photos that captured the alleged incident should not have been used since the requisite certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act was not obtained. The photographer/videographer has not aligned with the prosecution version in his deposition either, the court observed.“…it can be articulated that a society gets justice, which it deserves. If the persons are not willing to state or depose about the facts which they have witnessed or regarding the events which took place in their presence, the Courts of law cannot help the situation, as the Courts of law are duty bound to give findings strictly in accordance with law and strictly within the four corners of law”, the single judge bench clarified.The Court highlighted that in addition to the above, since the case only rests upon police witnesses, there should not be material discrepancies in the statements of police witnesses as settled in Samrath v. State of M.P. (2004).It was stated that Section 157(1) of Cr. P.C was also not complied with since F.I.R was lodged on 11.09.2016 and the counter of F.I.R was forwarded to the Magistrate only on 15.09.2016.“…Certainly, it is not always fatal for the prosecution case, but when the police itself is complainant, such type of delay also creates doubt on prosecution case”, Justice Prem Narayan Singh stated.The court, therefore, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused persons sentenced to imprisonment by the trial court for charges under Sections 148, 332/149 & 332 of IPC. Advocate H.S. Rathore represented the state. Advocate Ashish Gupta appeared for the appellants.Case Title: Gopal & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer Thru. P.S. PansemalCase No: Criminal Appeal No. 8024 of 2018Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 50Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment

When Prosecution Case Solely Rests On Police Witnesses, They Must Be Subject To Strict Scrutiny: MP HC Sets Aside Conviction In 2016 Rioting Case

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

When Prosecution Case Solely Rests On Police Witnesses, They Must Be Subject To Strict Scrutiny: MP HC Sets Aside Conviction In 2016 Rioting Case

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers