Chhattisgarh High Court: Testimony Of Injured Witness Cannot Be Doubted Due To Minor Inconsistencies; Can Be The Basis For Conviction Subject To Corroboration
The Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court, which had acquitted the Respondents of murder charges.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the evidence of an injured witness cannot ordinarily be doubted on account of minor contradictions so much so that even conviction can be based upon such evidence subject to corroboration with other incriminating factors.
The Court set aside the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court, which acquitted the Respondents of charges under Section 302, 149 and 307 of the IPC. The Court stated that the Trial Court erred in recording the finding of the acquittal in favour of the accused, even though there was “overwhelming evidence” against them by the injured eye-witness.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held, “Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for arriving at a finding that accused/respondents have committed murder of the deceased Raghunath, but by acquitting accused/respondents of the charge of Section 302 read with 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the trial Court has erred in recording the finding of the acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents though there was an overwhelming evidence against the accused/respondents of Lachhuram (PW-1), who is an injured eye-witness.”
Advocate Hariom Rai appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate S.P. Sahu represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The State had filed an Appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C challenging the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court in a murder case on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The injured eye-witness, son of the deceased, had lodged an FIR alleging that the accused came to his house with guns and took him to the river bank, where he was tied up and beaten up. It was further alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased with fists, bamboo sticks and eventually killed him.
Court’s Reasoning
Though the evidence of the prosecution witnesses contained some contradictions and omissions, the Court pointed out that the evidence of the injured eyewitness who had also lodged the FIR specifically mentioned the names of four accused persons.
The Bench remarked that “further he has also mentioned the names of rest of the accused in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on the same day, when the FIR was registered, therefore, involvement of the accused/respondents has been duly proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
“It is clear from the evidence of injured eyewitness Lachhuram (PW-1) that the accused/respondents were part of the unlawful assembly which committed the murder of the deceased Raghunath and also caused injury to him. Though he was extensively cross-examined, his testimony in this regard could not be shaken,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. For committing murder of deceased Raghunath, accused/respondents are convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Surajram & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:14245-DB)
