Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case: Evidence of Prosecution Witness Found Unreliable and Contradictory

Court’s Decision:

The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of the deceased. The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was unreliable and contradictory, and the testimony of the key eyewitness was not credible. Therefore, the conviction by the Trial Court was held to be unsustainable.

Facts:

The case pertains to the death of the deceased, who was found dead with severe cut injuries on his throat and other parts of his body on the night of June 11, 2019. The informant, who is the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint stating that his son had gone to take a bath with the accused and did not return. Later, he found his son’s body lying on the Illisuan village road. The accused was charged under Section 302 of the IPC based on the prosecution’s claim that he murdered the deceased using an axe.

During the investigation, the accused was arrested, and according to the police, he led them to the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., an axe stained with blood. The investigation officer also recorded the statement of a witness under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the axe and other incriminating articles were sent for forensic examination.

Issues:

• Whether the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether the evidence and testimony presented by the prosecution can be relied upon to convict the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellant argued that the Trial Court erroneously relied on the testimony of the key eyewitness, P.W.8, despite significant contradictions and inconsistencies in his statements. It was submitted that the witness’s delayed disclosure of the incident and his suspicious conduct made his testimony unreliable. Further, it was contended that the recovery of the axe at the instance of the accused was not corroborated by independent witnesses, making it unsafe to base the conviction on such evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The Respondent-State contended that the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused based on the eyewitness testimony and the corroborative evidence provided by the prosecution. It was argued that the delay in disclosure by the eyewitness was due to fear and that his testimony should not be discarded solely on this ground. Additionally, the prosecution emphasized that the recovery of the axe was a significant factor establishing the accused’s complicity.

Analysis of the Law:

The court scrutinized the credibility of the evidence provided by the prosecution, especially the testimony of P.W.8, the purported eyewitness. The court observed that the witness’s conduct after the incident, including his unexplained silence for 10 to 15 days and failure to disclose the incident to anyone, severely impacted his reliability. Furthermore, the recovery of the axe, which was purportedly based on the accused’s statement, was not corroborated by independent witnesses and appeared inconsistent with the statements of other prosecution witnesses.

The court noted that the evidentiary value of the witness’s testimony was significantly diluted by the contradictions and suspicious conduct, making it unsafe to rely on his statement to convict the accused.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referenced the principles laid down in previous judgments regarding the evaluation of evidence and the standard of proof required in criminal cases. It emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and if the evidence is found to be unreliable or contradictory, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The key eyewitness’s testimony was marred by contradictions, and there was no credible evidence to support the recovery of the weapon of offence. Additionally, the court found that the informant’s initial report did not raise any suspicion against the accused, and the prosecution’s case appeared to be based on speculative grounds rather than concrete evidence.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused. The appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in any other case.

Implications:

This judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal trials, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court’s emphasis on the reliability of witness testimony and the corroborative nature of evidence serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based on suspicion or contradictory evidence. This ruling may impact similar cases where the prosecution’s case heavily relies on uncorroborated eyewitness accounts.

Also Read – Uttarakhand High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Scholarship Scam Case, Citing No Need for Custodial Interrogation: “Personal Liberty Under Article 21 Should Be Curtailed Only When It Becomes Imperative”