Inconsistencies In Statements Of Truthful Witnesses Likely To Appear; Parrot Like Version Cannot Be Expected: P & H HC Upholds Murder Conviction

The Bench upheld the conviction and life sentence of an accused in a 1997 murder case. Since the FIR lodged against the accused was filed on the basis of an eyewitness, the credibility of the same was in question considering there were inconsistencies appearing in his testimony.

A Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice N.S.Shekhawat observed, “In fact, when the witnesses were deposing after such a long period, certain inconsistencies would appear in the statements of truthful witnesses also and the witnesses could not be expected to present a parrot like version before the Trial Court. In the present case, the prosecution had led sufficient evidence, which could establish the charge against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.”

Advocate Vaibhav Sharma represented the appellant, while Addl. DAG Sheenu Sura appeared for the respondent.

In 1997, the victim was shot dead while travelling in a four-wheeler. The incident was reported by an eyewitness, the victim's brother, who witnessed the accused firing at the victim. The trial Court in 2002 convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

“The defence had assailed the testimony of Karan Singh with regard to the same occurrence, he had filed a criminal complaint and in the said complaint it was shown that the appellant was accompanying Prem Singh and two more co-accused. It was further mentioned in the complaint that it was Prem Singh, who actually fired at Ramesh Kumar, since deceased. However, we find no substance in the arguments raised by learned defence counsel in this regard,” the Court observed.

The Court also pointed out that it was “common knowledge that in this part of country, there is an unfortunate tendency to involve number of persons, by exaggerating the version of the prosecution.”

However, the Court noted that the testimony of the eyewitness/complainant was corroborated by the statements of others.

The Court noted that all the injuries inflicted on the deceased were caused by a fire arm and were ante-mortem in nature. The prosecution in the case had proved on record the sanction order for prosecuting the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Therefore, the Court stated that the date of the arrest of the accused was established by the police and there was no ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecution.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Om Parkash v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:073074-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Vaibhav Sharma

Respondent: DAG Sheenu Sura

Click here to read/download the Order