Major Contradictions & Omissions In Statements Of Eye Witnesses & Police Witnesses: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Conviction In 2 Decades Old Murder Case
|The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction in a 23-year-old murder case noticing the serious and major contradictions and omissions in not only the statements of the eye-witnesses but also of the police witnesses.
The Court explained that the testimony of a reliable witness must be of “sterling quality” on which implicit reliance could be placed for convicting an accused. The Bench explained that the evidence of an eye-witness, if found truthful, can not be discarded simply because the witness was a relative of the deceased.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed, “Considering the evidence and other material on record in its entirety, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has erred in convicting the accused-appellants overlooking the fact that there are serious and major contradictions and omissions not only in the statement of eye witnesses but in the statement of police witnesses which makes the entire story doubtful and benefit thereof will go to the appellants.”
Advocate Bharat Singh Pankaj appeared for the appellant.
The accused in the case were convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused urged that the Trial Court had erred in recording the finding of the guilt overlooking the fact that there are major contradictions in the statement of witnesses which were fatal for the prosecution. It was argued that even from the statement of the witnesses, the place of occurrence of the crime was doubtful, but this aspect of the matter was not even considered.
The Court remarked, “It is common knowledge that enmity is a double edged weapon. On one side it may be a cause to falsely implicate the accused, where as it may be the real cause of the incident, on the other hand. So, benefit of enmity may go either side depending upon the facts and the circumstances of the case.”
The Court stated that FIR lodged outlined that there was an old enmity between the deceased and the accused. The Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in S. Sudershan Reddy v. State of A.P. wherein it was held that a relationship was not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and that “it is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person."
Consequently, the Court held, “It is crystal clear that there are major contradictions and omissions not only in the statement of the eye witnesses but in the depositions of the Investigating Officers, which not only makes the entire prosecution version doubtful but also makes the presence of the eye witness and place of occurrence doubtful. It may be added that the eye witnesses, complainant and the deceased are all related to each other and belong to one clan.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Ramesh Yadav v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citations: 2024:AHC:121291-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Bharat Singh Pankaj, Harindra Prasad Pal, Ramakant Singh and Vineet Kumar Singh