LexMD. JABBAR ALI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 773 MD. JABBAR ALI & ORS. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2010) OCTOBER 17, 2022 [AJAY RASTOGI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 r/w 149, 148,123 and 447 – Trial court convicted accused persons under different provisions of IPC including ss. 302 r/w 149, 148,123 and 447 – Prosecution had examined ten witnesses before trial court – High Court upheld the judgment and sentence passed by trial court – Propriety of conviction and sentence challenged on the ground that inter alia, witnesses PW- 1 to PW-6 were related to each other – Prosecution failed to examine any independent and impartial witness and there were material contradictions in the depositions made by the witnesses – Held: Court in appeal may reassess the evidence when there has been an improper reception or rejection of evidence, which if discarded or received would leave the conviction unsupportable – Court may also interfere in a case where there has been a misreading of vital evidence or the Court omits to notice the important points in favour of the accused – In the instant case, there were variations in the evidence of PW-6 who was the first informant and evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 regarding as to who gave fatal blows to the deceased – Trial court as well as High Court rightly did not rely on the evidence of these witnesses who were highly inconsistent with each other in holding the concerned accused guilty – PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 were not eye witnesses and their deposition did not lend any credence to the prosecution case on the point of who actually stabbed the deceased person – The inherent contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution-witnesses did not prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside. Evidence – Credibility of related/interested/partisan witnesses – Just because the witnesses are related/interested/ partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded – However, when the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection – In the instant [2022] 15 S.C.R. 773 773 A B C D E F G H 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. case, it was clear from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that all the witnesses were related to the deceased and to each other, there was not a single independent witness for prosecution – Moreover, there was contradiction and inconsistency in their testimonies – In such circumstances, the evidence could not be relied upon to convict the accused persons. Evidence: Inconsistent testimonies – Effect on prosecution case – Courts have to label as to which category a discrepancy can be categorized – Material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution’s case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so – In the present case there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution – The evidence of the prosecution is wholly unreliable and does not prove the alleged offences against the accused- appellants. Law of evidence: Material discrepancy in the evidence – Appreciation thereof. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. There are variations in the evidence of PW-6 who was the first informant in the instant case and the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 regarding as to who gave the fatal blows to deceased. The finding of the (trial court) Fast Track Court that the evidence of PW-6 finds corroboration with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The Fast Track Court as well as the High Court ought not to have relied on the evidence of these witnesses which are highly inconsistent with each other in holding the concerned accused guilty. [Para 41][793-H; 794-A, D-E] 2. The evidence of PW-3, who was the brother of the deceased, also does not support the case of the prosecution since PW-3 was not an eye-witness but was merely a hearsay witness who, in his deposition stated that he was informed by PW-4 that accused Md. Moyan Ali stabbed the deceased On examining the deposition of this witness PW-3, it is clear that the same is not corroborated by the evidence of any other witness such as PW-1 and PW-2 who stated that accused Md. Jabbar Ali stabbed the deceased and PW-6 who stated that accused Md. Sahed Ali A B C D E F G H 775 stabbed the deceased. The finding of the Fast Track Court that the evidence of PW-3 lends support to the correctness of the prose
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.