Two Months Delay To Record Witnesses' Statement & Their Depositions Were Recorded After A Decade: Meghalaya HC Acquits Murder Accused
The Meghalaya High Court acquitted a murder accused saying that the witnesses in the case were examined in a casual manner.
The Court noted that there was a delay of more than two months to record their statement and that their depositions were recorded in the Court after a decade.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by the accused who was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh remarked, “The Apex Court in Ram Kishan Singh vs. Harmit kaur and another (1972) 3 SCC 280, held that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive evidence and it can be used both to corroborate or contradict the statement of a witness. Moreover, the accused in his statement under Section 313 denied the consumption alcohol with the deceased and started the war of words and as such, the prosecution must have produced sufficient evidences to prove either the previous enmity or sudden provocation and the like. In a case involving murder, the witnesses were examined in a casual manner with a delay of more than two months to record their statement as well as their depositions were recorded in the Court after a decade, which creates doubts in the minds of this Court.”
The Bench said that there is a possibility of exaggeration and based on the presumption, a person cannot be convicted to undergo life imprisonment.
Advocate A.K. Bhuyan represented the appellant while Government Advocate R. Gurung represented the respondents.
In this case, as per the prosecution, a complaint was filed by a woman that her husband was beaten to death at a place and hence, an FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 304 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case was entrusted to the Sub-Inspector of Police who examined the complainant and two independent witnesses. Subsequently, two suspected persons were arrested including the appellant.
The accused persons had admitted that under the influence of alcohol, they picked up quarrel with the deceased and the next day, they came to know that the deceased was murdered. The Trial Court after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the appellant guilty of offence and convicted him and acquitted the other accused finding no incriminating materials against him. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “Though injuries and wounds found on the dead body were exhibited by Doctor, there was no particular weapon seized by the prosecution, with which the deceased was attacked, despite the fact that the Doctor opined that the death was caused with a sharp weapon. There was no mention by P.Ws.1 and 2 about the weapon used by the accused, while hitting the deceased.”
The Court took note of the fact that except saying that there were quarrel between the accused and the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was murdered, no witness had spoken about the motive for such murder and even the prosecution failed to establish as to what was the exact motive for the so-called quarrel and subsequent attack.
“There was no cogency in the deposition of P.W.2, who, on one hand deposed that he was only informed about the death of the deceased, as he ran away from the scene of occurrence and on the other hand, stated that while returning back, he had noticed the accused hitting the deceased. … If at all, the Trial Court is convinced with the depositions of P.Ws 1 and 2, in the absence of motive and intention, which are essential ingredients and factor in a murder case punishable under Section 302 IPC, the punishment could have been brought within the ambit of Section 300 IPC, a culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, it further said.
The Court noted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged motive and that the remaining circumstances relied on by the prosecution and held as proved by the Trial Court would not unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant.
“… we are able to see several flaws in the theory of the prosecution and with such inconclusive evidence, we are afraid to uphold the judgment of the Trial Court. … it is unsafe on the aforesaid circumstances to maintain the conviction of the Appellant and we thus extend the benefit of doubt to him”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant.
Cause Title- Thombor Shadap v. The State of Meghalaya & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MLHC:742-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates A.K. Bhuyan, J. Shylla, and P.P. Medhi.
Respondents: Government Advocates R. Gurung, J. Thabah, and S. Shyam.
