It’s Not Quantity But Quality Of Testimony Of Witness Which Matters For Placing Reliance: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man In 1998 Murder Case
|The Allahabad High Court allowed a Criminal Appeal of the accused against the Trial Court's Judgment which convicted him under Section 302 IPC in the year 2002.
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man who was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the year 2002.
The Lucknow Bench was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment by which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
A Division Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I reiterated, “It is no more res integra that it is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of a particular witness which matters for placing reliance thereon. A conviction can be based on the sole testimony of prosecution witness, provided the testimony of such witness is of unimpeachable nature and the witness is of sterling character.”
Amicus Curiae Nadeem Murtaza appeared for the Appellant/Accused while AGA Prabhat Adhaulya appeared for the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, in May 1998, in the morning, one man namely Kanhaiya (deceased) who belonged to the village of the informant, reached his house and demanded a sum of Rs. 40/-, stating that he had lent his cow for grazing and the money was required to retrieve his cow. However, the informant did not give him money as demanded but allegedly stated that he would accompany him and help him retrieve his cow. While they both were going, they stopped at the tap of a person to drink water and in the meantime, wife of the co-accused arrived there and began talking to Kanhaiya. The Appellant-accused and his brother i.e., co-accused reached at the spot. The co-accused was armed with an axe while the accused Appellant was armed with a spade (Kudal).
As soon as they arrived, the co-accused started abusing his wife, accusing her of secretly meeting with Kanhaiya. He also started abusing Kanhaiya and even chased him allegedly with the intent to kill him. Kanhaiya ran towards a house but the co-accused caught him and exhorted the Appellant to kill him. The Appellant allegedly assaulted him, causing his death on the spot. Upon hearing the hue and cry, the villagers reached there but the accused and co-accused fled away from the spot. Resultantly, an FIR was registered against the Appellant and the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted him. Being aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “If we take the aforesaid explanation to be plausible on its face value, it is difficult for us to reconcile the fact that the presence of an eye-witness, that too real brother of the deceased, Kanhaiya Lal was not mentioned in the written report, Ext. Ka-1. This omission lends support to the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant that the introduction of P.W.-2, Haridwar was an afterthought by the prosecution.”
The Court said that the recovery of Kudal (spade) has been proved by the prosecution but such recovery, per se, does not amount to proof of the fact that the deceased was killed by the Appellant on the date of incident.
The Court added that the finding of guilt of the Appellant recorded by the Trial Court based on the recovery of Kudal (spade) from his possession is not sustainable in law.
“The upshot of aforesaid discussion is that the impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2002 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge/First Fast Track Court, Gonda, whereby it held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., is unsustainable which deserves to be set aside and the present appeal deserves to be allowed”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s Judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Jodhhan @ Jeevdhan In Jail v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:20568-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Amicus Curiae Nadeem Murtaza, Advocates Vivek Pandey, and Ran Vijay Singh.
Respondent: AGA Prabhat Adhaulya