Appeal granted to the accused due to some discrepancies in witnesses’ statement: Odisha High Court
In a criminal case, the case of the prosecution must be proved beyond reasonable doubts. But if there is some discrepancies in the statement of witnesses, the accused can be given the benefit of doubt at the discretion of the court. A Division bench comprising of Justice S.K. Mishra & Justice Savitri Ratho adjudicating the matter of Bhikari Charan Das v. State of Orissa (JCRLA No.73 of 2008) dealt with an issue of whether to allow the present appeal of the Accused.
In the present case, the Appellant assails his Conviction and sentence to o undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Dist. Judge of Nayagarh.
According to the prosecution on 04.03.2006 at about 9.00 P.M., the husband of the informant-Nirmala Behera with her son went to the local market to purchase some articles. Suddenly, the accused came to the deceased, dealt blows by means of a knife, and assaulted him on different parts of his body after chasing him to a distance, as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot. The son of the deceased went to his house and informed his mother (Informant), who went to the spot, found her husband lying dead after being assaulted severely and sustaining injuries on different parts of his body. On getting reliable information, the local police went to the spot in the same night, found the dead body of the deceased lying in front of the house of one Kulamani Patnaik. At the spot, the wife of the deceased lodged a written report, and an investigation was taken place. The accused was arrested on 10.03.2006 and While in police custody, the accused gave recovery of the knife by which he had assaulted the deceased, from a bush near the house of one Arata Khanda of the said village.
The accused pleads denial of the charges and states that he has been falsely implicated but produced no evidence regarding such contention. It was submitted by the Appellant that the evidences of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1, 5, and 7 as well as the evidence of P.W.4- informant, the wife of the deceased are not reliable.
The Respondents stated that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and all the witness’s testimony is reliable.
The court after looking into the statements of witnesses the court found some discrepancies between the medical expert and eye-witnesses. Also, it was found that there is a major discrepancy regarding seat of injuries. While all the eye-witnesses stated that the accused assaulted the deceased by means of a knife on his belly, no incised injury/ stab wound was found on the belly at the time of postmortem examination. No such injury was specifically reported in the inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid blemishes, though we are not inclined to disbelieve the eye-witnesses completely, we think it proper to consider that as the Appellant is in custody since 10.03.2006 and, in the meantime, more than 15 years have elapsed, the conviction of the Appellant should be converted into one culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he should be convicted under Section 304, Part-I of the Penal Code. Hence the appeal is allowed.