Jharkhand HC Upholds Life Sentence For Man Convicted Of Killing His Brother, Though Wife And Sister Turned Hostile

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of his younger brother, allegedly caused by an assault with a wooden khunta during a property dispute.

The deceased’s wife named the appellant in her fardbeyan, but at trial she and the deceased’s sister, both presented as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile.

The trial court relied on the investigating officer’s evidence concerning their prior statements, the medical evidence, and other circumstances to convict the appellant; he appealed that decision.

The court considered Section 302 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted.

It applied the principle that a witness’s evidence is not wholly erased merely because the witness is declared hostile; the testimony must be assessed as a whole and with caution, and may be relied on to the extent it is found dependable.

The court relied on Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of Uttarakhand, which discusses that principle and refers to authorities including Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb v. State of U.P. and Govindappa v. State of Karnataka.

The court acknowledged that PW-4 and PW-5 resiled from their earlier accounts at trial, but accepted the investigating officer’s testimony about the statements they had made during investigation, noting that the defence had not elicited material showing an improper motive for him to record them falsely.

It found the place and manner of assault consistent with the investigating officer’s evidence and the post-mortem findings that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object.

On the evidence as a whole, the court held that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.