On 7th July, a bench of Patna High Court consisting of Justice Birendra Kumar while hearing an appeal held that when on the very same evidence, eleven persons have been acquitted and it cannot be proved that that case of the appellant stood on different and graver footing, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.
Facts of the case:
In the present case twelve accused persons faced trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447/149, 307/149 and 307 I.P.C. as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The eleven were acquitted of all the charges on the very same evidence and the sole appellant was convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2017. By order of sentence dated 06.12.2017 the appellant was awarded ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees fifty thousand for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the decision, the present appeal has been filed.
Contention of the Appellant:
Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended the following:
- It was submitted that that PW-4 Gajendra Prasad Singh who is informant of this case was not a hostile witness and his deposition that it was co-accused Pawan Singh who had caused firearm injury at the left eye of Shiv Shankar Singh cannot be ignored.
- It was further contended that on the very same evidence, eleven accused persons were acquitted by the same judgment without distinguishing how the case of the appellant was on separate footing to that of acquitted accused persons.
- There is no evidence that they were fleeing facing the firing and normal conduct would be that the people would flee away from the firing. In that situation, it was difficult to see as to whose shot had caused the injury when several persons were allegedly indulged in firing.
Contention of the injured:
Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing for the injured contended the following:
1. Except Gajendra Prasad all other prosecution witnesses are consistent that the appellant had caused injury at the left eye of Shiv Shankar Singh.
Gajendra Prasad Singh had also stated in the FIR that appellant had caused injury to Shiv Shankar Singh. If Gajendra Prasad Singh said before the court as PW-4 that it was Pawan Singh who had caused injury to Shiv Shankar Singh that would not make other four trustworthy witnesses unbelievable.
Observation and judgment of the court:
The Hon’ble bench of the court made the following observation:
- There is no dispute that PW-4 Gajendra Prasad Singh is not a hostile witness. Even after conclusion of the prosecution evidence, Gajendra Prasad Singh did not file any application that his statement was a slip of tongue.
- There is serious doubt on the identity of the assailant of Shiv Shankar Singh. Moreover, on the very same evidence, eleven persons have been acquitted and unless the appellant stood on different and graver footing, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.
- There was no definite evidence from any prosecution witnesses of the occurrence that the witnesses including Shiv Shankar Singh were fleeing facing the firing. Hence, it is doubtful that anyone would have seen the real person who had caused firearm injury.
In view of the above the court did not find the conviction of the appellate sustainable in law and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant was asked to be set free at once.
Read Judgment ;
source ; latestlaws.com
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments