The Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal and Others Vs The State of Chhattisgarh held that the conviction of the Appellants purely based on the oral testimony of the interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration, would not be sustainable.
It was expounded that when it comes to "wholly reliable" witnesses, it is not difficult for the Prosecution to pursue a conviction based solely on their testimony. Again, there is no issue if the witness is "wholly unreliable" because no conviction could be reached based only on the oral testimony of such a person. The third kind of evidence, which is partially reliable and partially unreliable, presents the actual challenge. In these situations, the Court must use caution, separate the grain from the chaff, and seek further corroboration from reliable testimony, whether direct or circumstantial.
Brief Facts:
Accused No. 11 assaulted PW-1 and thereafter formed an unlawful assembly that was armed with deadly weapons and entered the house of the deceased Kartikram and assaulted him as well as PW-2 and 9. As a result of the said assault, Kartikram died on the spot. Furthermore, the FIR got registered and a charge sheet was filed against the 12 Accused persons. Moreover, the Trial Court convicted all the Accused persons. The appeals were also filed before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the High Court.
Contentions of the Accused No. 8 to 10:
It was contended that the names of the Accused No 8-10 were not mentioned in any of the documents. The name of the three Accused persons was first time mentioned in the FIR. It was further contended that the inordinate delay in registering an FIR was not explained by the Prosecution.
Also, the conviction was solely based on the testimony of such interested witnesses, whose claims were not coherent or trustworthy and hence, not sustainable unless there is some corroboration of their testimony.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be a ground to reject their testimonies. Furthermore, if the evidence is judged to be credible, reliable, and coherent, the fact that the witnesses are interested cannot be used as a justification for disregarding their testimony. It was also contended that what matters for a conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is whether the Accused was a member of an unlawful assembly, not whether he actively participated in the crime or not.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that Accused No. 11 specifically stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that he had suffered severe injuries as a result of being assaulted by PW-1and that he had gone to the police station after that to receive treatment before being taken to Bhatapara Hospital.
The Hon’ble Court while dealing with the issue of the non-explanation of injuries sustained by Accused No. 11observed that the injuries sustained by Accused No. 11 cannot be considered to be minor and superficial. Furthermore, due to the election of the Sarpanch, there was a history of animosity between the two families. On the one hand, it can offer a motive, but on the other hand, it is impossible to rule out the possibility of a false implication.
It was noted that the Prosecution has made an effort to conceal the actual genesis of the occurrence. This aspect of the case along with the lack of an explanation for the injuries suffered by Accused No. 11 led the Court to the determined conclusion that Accused No. 11 was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The Bench further noted that a delay of 4 hours in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the Prosecution case. It was opined that FIR if not substantial, is a valuable piece of evidence. The immediate lodging of the same removes doubt, especially when the case involves a fight between two groups.
It was expounded that when it comes to "wholly reliable" witnesses, it is not difficult for the Prosecution to pursue a conviction based solely on their testimony. Again, there is no issue if the witness is "wholly unreliable" because no conviction could be reached based only on the oral testimony of such a person. The third kind of evidence, which is partially reliable and partially unreliable, presents the actual challenge. In these situations, the Court must use caution, separate the grain from the chaff, and seek further corroboration from reliable testimony, whether direct or circumstantial.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Top Court held that the conviction of the Appellants purely based on the oral testimony of the interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration, would not be sustainable.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the Appellants and accordingly disposed of the applications.
Case Title: Nand Lal and Others Vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1421 OF 2015
Advocate for Appellants: Adv. Vikas Upadhyay
Advocate for Respondents: Adv. Sumeer Sodhi
Social media is bold.
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