LexGOLBAR HUSSAIN AND ORS. versus STATE OFASSAMANDANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015] 5 S.C.R. 525
GOLBAR HUSSAIN AND ORS.
v.
· STATE OFASSAMANDANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 2013)
APRIL 28, 2015
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3021149- Prosecution under
- Of five accused - Acquittal by trial courl - Conviction by
High Courl - On appeal, held: The two prosecution witnesses
were related, contradicted each other and were not supported
A
B
c
by any independent witness - Hence conviction based on D
those witnesses is not sustainable.
Appeal -
Appeal against acquittal - Power of
appellate court - Held: While deciding such appeal the
appellate courl has to bear in mind that presumption of E
innocence is available to the accused and such presumption
is reinforced by his acquittal - If two views are possible, the
view favourable to the accused, should be taken - Criminal
Jurisprudence.
Witness- Related witness- Evidentiary value- Held: F
There is no bar on admissibility of testimony of related
witness, but it should stand the test of being credible, reliable,
trustworthy, admissible in accordance with law and
corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An appellate court, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in H
525
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 5 S.C.R.
A favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him,under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
B accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court. [Para 7] (531-D-F]
c
Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Kamataka {2007} 4
SCC 415:2007 {2} SCR 630; Kallu alias Masih and
Ors. vs. State of M.P. (2006} 10 SCC 313: 2006 (1)
SCR 201 - relied on.
1.2 The Trial Court has given a reasoned decision
D after careful and thorough analysis of the evidence
produced by the parties. The trial court also had the
advantage of looking at the demeanor of the witnesses,
and was correct in granting the benefit of doubt to the
accused and acquitting them. The High Court erred in
E presuming a version against the accused as the view
which is favourable to the accused should be taken in
cases where two views are probable. The view taken by
the trial court was reasonable and probable in view of
F the facts of the present case. (Paras 8and10] [532-E-G;
533-F]
2.1 PW-4 and PW-5 are related witnesses. There
is no bar on the admissibility of a statement by related
G witnesses supporting the prosecution case, but it should
stand the test of being credible, reliable, trustworthy,
admissible in accordance with law and corroborated by
other witnesses or documentary evidence of the
prosecution. It is the quality of the witness that matters
H and not the quantity, when the related witness was
examined and found credible. In such a case, non-
GOLBAR HUSSAIN v. STATE OF ASSAM
527
e~amination of an independent witness would not be A
fatal to the prosecution case. [Para 9] [532-H; 533-A-B]
Manga alias Man Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2013)
7 SCC 629: 2013 (3) SCR 175- relied on.
2.2 In the present case, however, the prosecution
witnesses PW-4 and PW-5, contradict each other, and
their statements are not corroborated by any
independent witness in spite of the incident happening
B
in the market place, with shops on both sides of the road. c
Therefore, as the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 are not
cc;>mpletely reliable, this is a fit case where corroboration
by an independent witness was required. The case of
the prosecution also weakens on the ground that the
only independent witness PW-8 turned hostile. [Para 9] D
(533-C-D]
Shyama/SahaandAnr. v. StateofWestBenga/(2014)
E
12 SCC
321:2014 (3) SCR 90 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
2007 (2) SCR 630 relied on.
Para 7
2006 (1) SCR 201
relied on.
Para 8
2013 (3). SCR 175 relied on.
Para
2014(3) SCR 90
relied on.
Para 9
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 181 of2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2012 of the
Gauhati High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 165 of 2004
F
G
Ranjan Mukherjee, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Abhijit H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[.2015] 5 S.C.R.
A Sengupta, fortheAppellants.
B
Kartika Sahay, Corporate Law Group, V. K. JExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.