Allahabad HC Acquits 3 Men In 1985 Murder, Finding Informant’s Disputed Claim To Victim’s Land Tainted His Sole Testimony

In the night of 30/31 January 1985, Maiku was killed in a thatched hut and informant Sharda Prasad claimed that he witnessed the assault and was injured when he intervened.

The FIR named Swami Dayal, Jagannath, Gotey Baj and an unknown person; the prosecution relied principally on Sharda Prasad’s testimony, as the two other alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile.

The Sessions Court convicted the three accused under Sections 302/34, 449 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder, with concurrent terms for the other offences.

They appealed against the convictions and sentences.

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not require a particular number of witnesses; the quality of evidence is decisive.

Under Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, and Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2003 SC 854, testimony may be wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither; where it falls into the third category, corroboration in material particulars is required before relying on it.

A conviction may rest on a sole witness if that evidence is reliable, but the court must assess the witness’s presence, opportunity to observe, and overall credibility.

An injured witness’s testimony merits careful consideration, but the injury does not make the witness infallible.

The appeals were brought under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; the convictions concerned Sections 302/34, 449 and 323/34 IPC.

The Court accepted that Maiku’s death was homicidal, but found that the prosecution’s two other alleged eyewitnesses did not identify the assailants or support the prosecution’s account.

It therefore assessed Sharda Prasad’s testimony as the sole eyewitness account and found material concerns, including the circumstances of his presence at the hut, the absence of paddy there, the non-examination of Maiku’s wife and other nearby witnesses, inconsistencies in the alleged motive, Sharda Prasad’s property-related interest in Maiku’s estate, the discrepancy concerning when the FIR was lodged, and the absence of a test identification parade for Jan Mohammad.

In the absence of reliable corroboration, the Court considered it unsafe to sustain the convictions on Sharda Prasad’s evidence alone; the trial court had not adequately addressed these matters.

It acquitted Swami Dayal, Jagannath and Jan Mohammad alias Gotey Baj.

Jagannath was ordered released forthwith unless required in another case; the bail bonds and sureties of the other appellants were discharged, subject to compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C.