Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Convictions Of 3 Men In Co-Sharer’s Death, Citing Contradictory Eyewitnesses And No Blood Or Straw At The Scene

The prosecution alleged that, on 25 June 1998, the appellants and others assaulted Gour Thakur with a crowbar and lathis at a barn following a land dispute, causing his death.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 304/149 IPC; Pushu Thakur was also convicted under Section 302/149 IPC.

During the appeal, appellant Golak Thakur died and the appeal against him abated.

The remaining appellants challenged the convictions, principally disputing the reliability of the alleged eyewitnesses and pointing to inconsistencies between their evidence and the medical and investigative evidence.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; an accused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, and where the evidence reasonably supports both guilt and innocence, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.

Under the principles discussed in Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381, and State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, ordinary discrepancies do not necessarily undermine a witness, but material contradictions affecting credibility may do so; evidence must be assessed by separating reliable parts from unreliable parts where possible.

The Court also relied on Mohd. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, (2023) 19 SCC 672, concerning the effect of material contradictions, and on Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 3 SCC 454, Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98, State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96, Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC 57, and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, on proof beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt.

The convictions arose under Sections 147, 148, 447, 304/149 and 302/149 IPC.

The Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution account concerning who was present before the assault, whether the witnesses arrived only after an alarm, and whether blood was present at the scene.

The informant’s fardbeyan did not clearly state that he witnessed the assault, while his later testimony described the occurrence and an alleged attack on him; the evidence of PW 3 about the witnesses’ prior presence also conflicted with the informant’s account.

Further, witness accounts of bleeding and multiple injuries were inconsistent with each other and with the post-mortem evidence, while the investigating officer found neither blood nor straw at the alleged place of occurrence.

Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution version, and evidence that the deceased may have fallen from a machan provided an alternative account.

Taken cumulatively, these circumstances made the eyewitness evidence unsafe to rely upon and raised reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.

It set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court and allowed both appeals.

Sukhdeo Thakur, Pushu Thakur and Naryaan Thakur, who were on bail, were discharged from their bail-bond liabilities; the appeal against Golak Thakur had already abated upon his death.