In Kari Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 18-page long judgement setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Darbhanga in a Sessions Trial of 1997. The judgement reads:"The appellant was acquitted of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubts. 29. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds." 30. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed."
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the trial court.
The informant had recorded her statement to the effect that while she had been sleeping on the varandah of her house and her daughter had been sleeping inside, on February 24/25, 1996 at about 1.00 A.M., the appellant Kari Yadav came and gagged her mouth and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Some scuffle took place and she received injuries on both her legs. Hearing her muffled sound, her daughter woke up and raised alarm and Yogendra Yadav and Madan Yadav reached there and, thereafter, the appellant Kari Yadav fled away from the spot. A formal FIR was instituted under Section 376 IPC. The police investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 376 IPC against the appellant finding the case to be true. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed against the sole accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 376 IPC, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents.
In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delh (Criminal Appeal No. 2486 of 2009), the Supreme Court held that 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. The Court further held that the said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence as alleged against him. Applying these principles on the facts before it, the Supreme Court held that the solitary version of the chief-examination of P.W. 4, the prosecutrix, cannot be taken as gospel truth for its face value and in absence of any other supporting evidence, there was scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants.
In Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1252 of 2011), the Supreme Court on account of certain shortcomings, irregularities and lacuna on the part of the prosecution did not find it is safe to convict the appellant.
Justice Jha concluded:"27. Therefore, a reading of the evidence together, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in this case non-supporting medical examination report, non-examination of investigating officer and the background of family disputes show that the prosecution case has a shadow of doubt all along. Hence, conviction of the appellant on the basis of such evidence could not be sustained and upheld."
No comments:
Post a Comment