Judgment passed by the learned trial court was set aside because of various contradictions in evidence – Jharkhand high court
A criminal appeal was filed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the sessions judge on the ground that there are various contradictions in the order and it should be set aside. The appeal was heard and allowed by a two-judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD in the case of Haricharan Boipoi and Ors. Versus the state of Bihar (now Jharkhand ) in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 04 of 1993(R)
The appeal was filed by nine appellants against the judgment and order of conviction passed by additional sessions judge in Sessions Trial No. 383 of 1989 where the appellants were convicted for offenses punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the case has various contradictions and incongruities and it is further submitted that the allegations are general and the evidence of witnesses does not support the participation of the accused person in the murder and the sheo charan(another accused ) had similar allegations as other petitioners but the trial court has committed an error in law by convicting the appellants while acquitting Sheo Charan. The counsel further presents some disruptions and contradictions in the medical examination and the doctor who conducted the inquiry was not examined and his non-examination has greatly caused prejudice to the defense. There was no independent witness in the case all witnesses were interested parties in the case and because of the above contradictions and discrepancies pointed out, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
The learned counsel appearing for the state submitted that all witnesses are consistent and have named all appellants who were included in the assault and the medical evidence also supports ocular evidence. the shoe charan was not included in the FIR d his name was subsequently disclosed by some of the witnesses and his case being on a different footing no advantage can be extended to the appellants on account of the acquittal of Sheo Charan. and the counsel demands for the dismissal of the criminal appeal.
The Hon’ble court hearing the rival submissions by both parties finds that because of various contradictions arising out of evidence it cannot be said to be credible and trustworthy and the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and the contradictions arising out of such evidence hence the judgment passed by the trial court cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction was set aside and the appeal was allowed
Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma