Testimony Of Sole Witness Enough To Convict, But Not In This Case: Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Conviction In Rape & Murder Case
The Jharkhand High Court set aside the conviction in rape and murder case noting the conflict and contradictions in the sole witnesses' statements.
The Court was hearing two Criminal Appeals arising out a common Judgment of conviction in an alleged case of rape and murder, where the informant was the daughter of the victim woman and discrepancy existed between the persons she named in her initial statement and protest petition.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary reiterated, "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." But based on the facts of the case, concluded, "On these conflicting and contradictory statements, I am of the view that her solitary account cannot be relied without any other corroboration. Judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside.
Advocate Abhay Kumar Chaturvedi appeared for the appellants and Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar appeared for the Respondent-State.
In the present case, a married but deserted woman was kept as a wife by a man from her native village. The prosecution's case was that the man and two others, after having food and drinks together with the woman, raped and murdered her. They then threatened her daughter, the informant in the case, to not disclose the incident.
On the basis of the fardbeyan (complainant's statement), a case was registered under Sections 302 (Punishment for murder), 376 (Rape), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender and 34 (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The accused-appellants submitted that case where neither the post-mortem examination report was brought on record to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, nor the medico legal examination report was proved to confirm the charge of rape.
They also noted that there was more than one month’s delay in lodging the FIR, without any explanation for it, on which the Court remarked, "It is said that informant had been threatened for not lodging the case, but how after one month the said threat disappeared, is not clear."
The mother of the victim and two independent witnesses, who resided in the same neighbourhood, turned hostile. This led to the prosecution case resting on the testimony of the informant, "whose account is riddled with contradictions," the High Court said.
The Court noted the discrepancy between names taken by her in her initial statement and her protest petition. Between the two statements, both of which named three persons, only one of the names was common. Noting these "conflicting and contradictory statements", the Court set aside the appellants' conviction and allowed their Criminal Appeals.
Cause Title: Mithilesh Chauhan @ Khacharwa v. The State of Jharkhand [ Criminal Appeal (D.B.) 337 of 2002 and 338 of 2002]
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Abhay Kumar Chaturvedi
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar and Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
