0

False and inconsistent testimonies directed the appeal against the judgment of conviction – Jharkhand high court

False and inconsistent testimonies directed the appeal against the judgment of conviction – Jharkhand high court

Major incoherency and inconsistency in the testimonies of witnesses and error in evidence are found to be the basis of allowing The appeal against the judgment of conviction. the appeal was allowed by the single judge heading  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR  in the case of Pachu Gope Versus The State of Jharkhand (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1384 of 2003)

The crux of the case is an appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.08.2003 and order of sentence dated 26.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby Pachu Gope has been convicted under sections 376/511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years.

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial court has failed to take into consideration that there is no corroborative evidence in the present case to convict the appellant and there have been serious contradictions amongst the prosecution witnesses and there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which has not been properly explained and the veracity of the solitary evidence of the victim is also not believable and trustworthy and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

The A.P.P appearing on behalf of the state opposed the contentions held the appellant guilty for the offense punishable u/s 376/511 of IPC and there is no contradiction or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

The court hearing both sides found that no independent witnesses have been examined to support the case of the prosecution and found falsity of the case with respect to the alleged assault of the date of occurrence and,  the veracity and the truthfulness of the offense of attempt to commit rape by which the occurrence of assault had taken place are also falsified. therefore it is well found that the learned trial court has committed error in the appreciation of the pieces of evidence in totality and major incoherency and inconsistency found in the testimonies of witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 coupled with the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.

Accordingly, the court held that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not hold good and fit to be set aside, hence this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.8.2003 passed in S.T. No. 79/2000  is set- aside

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement reviewed by Naveen sharma

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat