Tag: witnessess

-Report by Mahak Gulbake

The Supreme Court has held it in the case of Dibaker Nunia & Anr. V. The State of Assam that it is important for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts in serious offences.

FACTS

In this case, an F.I.R. had been filed by a person at the Ghungoor Police Outpost on 01st October 1999 at approximately 10 a.m. He alleged that at 12.30 a.m. the day before, as he was coming home, he discovered a man lying in front of the Congress Party election office. According to the informant and based on an electric lamp, he identified the individual on the ground as his younger brother. He returned home and learned from his parents that the appellants(or accused) had attacked the deceased in the evening. The case was investigated and a charge sheet was filed in relation to the offences under section 302/34 IPC. A trial was conducted before the trial court and the accused were convicted. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants and affirmed the judgment as passed by the Sessions Court, Cachar, Silchar, Assam convicting the appellants of an offence under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and awarded the rigorous imprisonment for a lifetime.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

Learned counsel for the appellants argued vehemently that both the Sessions Court and the High Court, in this case, proceeded based on irrelevant considerations and ignored major weaknesses in the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the conviction of the appellants is primarily based on the testimony of the mother and father of the accused, but their statements not only include major contradictions but also contain inbuilt implausibilities. If their statements are considered, it is not a normal activity for any person to return home, eat a meal and sleep after having seen his kid being assaulted by some people. Further, none of the independent witnesses has corroborated the story of the father of the deceased.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the State has addressed properly the impugned judgement and order and has argued that, when the totality of the circumstances is considered, it cannot be said that the statements of the witnesses are completely unreliable and that the concurrent findings based on those statements do not merit interference.

COURT’S DECISION

After the cross-examination of the shreds of evidence, it has been held that it is true that the deceased was violently abused and sustained many injuries to essential organs, but based on the information presented by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were solely responsible for these injuries. In light of the above, it was observed:

“It remains trite that in such a criminal case, the prosecution is expected to prove its case and to substantiate the charge beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case1. When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. In the present case, the doubts reasonably arising in the matter had been brushed aside by the High Court on the logic that itself remains unacceptable.“

The order of the High Court was set aside and the accused were acquitted.

-Report by Zainab Khan

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh Vs the state of Chhattisgarh that a convict is entitled to get the equal benefit of the doubt as the co-accused has been given.

FACTS

It was the case of the prosecution that on 31st May 2014, SHO of Chakarbarta Police Station received information about the appellant and his friend carrying cannabis in their car and they were traveling from Raipur to Pendra road. The SHO along with two independent witnesses searched the appellant’s car u/s 50 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act 1985 and found 47.37 kg of cannabis. The SHO further filed a charge sheet against the appellant and his friend. After examining seven witnesses the Special Court convicted the appellant u/s 20(b)(i)(c) of
Narcotics drugs and Psychotropic substances Act 1985 for illegally transporting cannabis and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 Lakh, but acquitted the co-accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the two independent witnesses didn’t support the statement of the SHO and they denied their presence during the search & seizure process. He further argued that the co-accused can’t be acquitted on the same statement on which the appellant was convicted. The counsel relied upon the judgments of Ajmer Singh Vs the State of Haryana and Mohinder Singh Vs the State of Punjab.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel for the respondent argued that since the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances act 1985 is a complete act in itself and when possession of cannabis is proved it is on the accused to prove how the substance came under his possession. The counsel relied upon the judgments of – Mukesh Singh Vs state(Narcotic branch of Delhi ) in which it was held that it is not always necessary to corroborate the testimony of police officials, through
testimony of an independent witness; Dharampal Singh Vs the state of Punjab where it was held that lack of independent witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

COURT’S DECISION

After cross-examining both the independent witness and SHO, a big variation came. Since SHO claims that the process of search & seizure has been done in front of two independent witnesses, whereas both the independent witnesses completely deny its existence. The court observed-

“it is true that sec 54 of NDPA 1985 raises a presumption and the burden shifts on accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband. But to raise the presumption under sec 54 of NDPA 1985, it must first be established that a recovery was made from accused. The moment a doubt is cast upon rhe most fundamental aspect
namely the search and seizure, the appellant will also be entitled to same benefit as given by special court to co-accused.”

The hon’ble court allowed the appeal and granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant and the judgments of the special court and high court were set aside.