Conviction Can Be Based On Solitary Witness's Testimony Only If It Inspires Confidence & Is Wholly Reliable: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court reiterated that the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be returned solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the informant.
The court observed thus while it set aside the judgment of conviction due to multiple inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that "Law is settled that in a case where the testimony of the solitary witness inspires confidence and it is wholly reliable, it can be the basis for passing a judgment of conviction and sentence."
Additionally, they noted that "the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be returned on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the informant."
Advocate Abhay Kumar Chaturvedi appeared for the appellant, while Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar represented the State.
The case involves the murder and alleged rape of a woman. The informant, the deceased's daughter, reported the incident through a fardbeyan. According to the informant, her mother, who was deserted by her father, lived with another individual who maintained her. On a particular date, the individual allegedly sent others to abduct and commit rape and murder. An FIR was registered against eight accused under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted the accused.
The key issues raised in appeal included a delay of over one month in lodging the FIR without any explanation and the absence of crucial supporting evidence such as post-mortem and medico-legal reports. Independent witnesses from the same neighborhood did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.
The Court, while setting aside the judgment of conviction, noted that the testimony of the informant was riddled with contradictions, with differing accounts in the fardbeyan and protest petition.
Cause Title: Mithilesh Chauhan v. The State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 337 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 380 of 2002)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Abhay Kumar Chaturvedi
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar and Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjay Kumar Srivastava.
Click Here to Read/Download the Judgement
