Accusation Against the Appellants Has Become Doubtful : Patna High Court Overturns Murder Convictions Due to Reasonable Doubt

High Court sets aside convictions under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, citing contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural lapses in investigation.

The High Court of Patna has overturned the murder convictions of Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad, Ranjit Kumar, and Manjit Kumar, citing reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness statements and investigative flaws. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar, highlights significant gaps in the prosecution’s case, leading to the acquittal of all appellants.

The appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the alleged murder of Meena Devi @ Kamla Devi on May 5, 2014. The prosecution claimed that Arvind Kumar shot the deceased in the presence of her son, Pradeep Kumar (PW3), and two other witnesses, Urmila Devi (PW5) and Kusum Devi (PW7). The motive was purportedly a land dispute that led to a threat against the deceased and her son. The trial court sentenced Arvind Kumar to life imprisonment, while Ranjit and Manjit Kumar received similar sentences under Section 302/34 IPC.

The High Court scrutinized the testimonies of key witnesses, particularly Pradeep Kumar (PW3), who claimed to have witnessed the murder. The court noted several contradictions in his statements, including the absence of corroborating evidence regarding the land dispute and the inconsistency of other witnesses’ accounts. The court also pointed out that PW3’s testimony regarding the presence of other eyewitnesses, Urmila Devi and Kusum Devi, was unreliable as they had not been mentioned in the initial police report.

The court gave considerable attention to the testimony of Dhuri Mahto (PW5A), who was declared hostile. His initial statement, which partially corroborated the prosecution’s case, was deemed unreliable as he later claimed that his signature was obtained on a blank piece of paper. The court referenced several Supreme Court rulings, including Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, to emphasize that hostile witness testimonies should be scrutinized and can be relied upon if they align with other credible evidence.

Significant procedural gaps were highlighted in the investigation, such as the delayed recording of witness statements, absence of forensic examination of seized items, and discrepancies in the inquest report. The court noted that the post-mortem report, which confirmed a homicidal death, raised questions about the assailant’s identity and the shooting distance, as no blackening or charring was found near the wound despite claims of a close-range shooting.

Justice Ashutosh Kumar remarked, “The positioning of the signature of PW5A very close to the last line of the fardbeyan and the subsequent hostility of the witness shrouds the prosecution version in some doubt.” He further noted, “The appellants are not unjustified in concluding that the accusations against them have become doubtful.”

The High Court’s decision to set aside the convictions underscores the importance of thorough and consistent witness testimonies and procedural integrity in criminal investigations. By highlighting the gaps and contradictions in the prosecution’s case, the judgment reinforces the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused in the absence of conclusive evidence. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice through meticulous scrutiny of evidence.

Date of Decision: 01-07-2024