Del. HC: Accrual of Cause of Action at a Place is not a Consideration for Determining Jurisdiction  ||  Mad. HC to State: Prevent use of Stickers such as ‘Police’ or ‘GOI’ on Private Vehicles  ||  Bom. HC: Magistrate Needn’t Provide Additional Reasons for Amount of Interim Compensation Awarded  ||  Del. HC: ‘THEOBROMA’ is Free to Expand its Outlets Across the Country  ||  Ker. HC: Detention Order Under KAPPA 2007 must be Confirmed Within 3 Months from Date of Execution  ||  Kar. HC: Not Every False Statement Made in Court Must be Subject to Prosecution  ||  Ker. HC: Roads are Ordinarily Deserted During Night; Likelihood of Causing Death by Accident is Less  ||  Del. HC: Severity of Offence Can’t Disentitle Foreigner to Get Parole for Filing SLP  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Compound Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act at Revision Stage Without Complainant’s Consent  ||  Bom. HC: There Should be Some Accountability Fixed on Courts in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration    

State of Bihar Vs. Sheo Pujan Kumhar and Ors. - (High Court of Patna) (01 Oct 2020)

If the circumstance is sought to be proved by a solitary witness then the Court has to be conscious on relying that solitary evidence



The State of Bihar has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, whereby Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, the accused persons had the motive to commit the occurrence, since the informant's side were in possession of joint family property, which was being objected by the accused persons. The death of the father of the informant with injuries caused by sharp weapon on the neck, is being corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor.

There is no fetters on the plenary power of the Appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which the judgment of acquittal is based but the Appellate Court always keep in mind that, innocence attributed to the accused having been converted into an acquittal should not be normally interred with, unless the same is vitiated with manifest illegality, as has been in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vrs. State of Maharashtra.

It is true that in the case of direct evidence, the motive takes a back seat, but in the circumstantial evidence, the motive plays an important role. In the present case, the two motives have been alleged; one that the informant's side were in possession of the entire share of the joint family property, the Respondents are none else than the own brother of the deceased, and with regard to the dispute threatening had also been given earlier by the accused persons. The other motive is eating away of Khesari grain by animal in the house of the informant. These motives have been alleged for the first time in the Court.

The evidence regarding the existence of a motive, which operates in the mind of the accused, is very often limited and it is difficult to adduce evidence to that effect. The evidence on record must suggest the existence of such a motive. In the present case, it does not appear that there was any actual relevant motive for the accused to commit crime. After analyzing the evidence on record, it appears that virtually the prosecution has tried to prove the prosecution case unsuccessfully by virtue of one circumstance, i.e. accused was seen running away from the place of occurrence. This only circumstance has tried to be proved through the evidence of P.W. 5.

In such a situation, if the circumstance is sought to be proved by a solitary witness then, the Court has to be conscious on relying such solitary evidence. Further, it is true that, the medical evidence cannot override the ocular evidence, unless it completely negates the ocular evidence as has been held in the case of Ram Narain Singh Vs. State of Punjab. The Supreme Court held that, where the evidence of witnesses of prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical opinion, it amounts to fundamental defect in the prosecution case unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.

The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence pertaining to burden of proof is that the same is on the prosecution. The guilt of accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt and not all doubts. It is well settled that, the presumption of innocence of the accused is further re-enforces with the judgment of acquittal being recorded by the learned trial Court. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence or reaching to the conclusion of acquittal by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved