"A Fatal Encounter and the Quest for Justice: Revisiting the Patna High Court’s Verdict "

 


1.     Introduction

This document provides an in-depth explanation of the judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1228 of 2019, dated 12th August 2022. The judgment arises from a criminal appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the appellant, Md. Kaleem @ Rinku, who challenged the acquittal of the respondents (accused) by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Purnea, in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2018.

Background of the Case

The appellant, who is also the informant in the case, filed the appeal challenging the acquittal of respondents No. 2 (Virendra Kumar Chaudhary) and No. 3 (Mohit Chaudhary), who were charged under Sections 148, 341, 323, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The incident leading to the trial occurred on 3rd October 2017, at around 8 p.m., when the appellant’s brother, Md. Jamal, was allegedly shot by the accused near Santosh Pal Market.

The FIR was registered on 4th October 2017 at 4:30 a.m., approximately one kilometer from the location of the incident. According to the appellant’s account, his brother was attacked by six men riding on motorcycles who surrounded them and, on the instigation of one of the accused, respondent No. 2 fired at Md. Jamal, resulting in his death. The accused fled the scene immediately afterward.

Evidence Presented During Trial

  1. Witness Testimonies:
    • P.W.-1 reached the place of occurrence after the gunshot and found the deceased on the road with a visible gunshot wound.
    • P.W.-2 (Mohd. Nihal), a hearsay witness, testified that he learned about the incident from the appellant and another witness, Aftab Alam (P.W.-3).
    • P.W.-3 (Aftab Alam): Claimed to be an eyewitness and corroborated the appellant’s account that respondent No. 2 fired at the deceased.
    • P.W.-4 (Appellant): The primary informant whose testimony aligned with that of P.W.-3, but inconsistencies were noted during cross-examination.
  2. Medical Evidence:
    • The post-mortem report indicated a firearm injury to the chest, causing hemorrhage and shock, leading to the death of the victim. A metallic bullet was found lodged under the muscle of the chest wall.
  3. Investigative Gaps:
    • The police did not record statements from nearby shop owners or employees of Mishra Line Hotel, situated near the place of occurrence.
    • Testimonies from P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., but the police failed to record statements of certain crucial witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Findings of the Trial Court

The trial court noted discrepancies in the evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses. It found inconsistencies between the statements of P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, particularly concerning the sequence of events following the incident. Furthermore, the trial court raised concerns about the lack of testimonies from independent witnesses who could have corroborated the prosecution’s narrative, especially since the incident occurred in a densely populated area.

The trial court also highlighted the contradiction between the testimony of P.W.-2 and the police's documentation of the inquest report. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt and thus acquitted them.

High Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The High Court reviewed the entire evidence and submissions made by both the prosecution and the defense. The court observed the following:

  1. Discrepancies in Testimonies:
    • Contradictions between the statements of P.W.-2, P.W.-3, and P.W.-4 were deemed significant.
    • The delay in recording the FIR was noted as a point of concern.
  2. Legal Precedents:
    • The court referred to the decisions in Hakeem Khan v. State of M.P. (2017) 5 SCC 719 and N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N. (2021) 3 SCC 687, emphasizing that an acquittal cannot be interfered with unless the view of the trial court is found to be unreasonable or legally unsound.
  3. Presumption of Innocence:
    • The appellate court reiterated the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. When an acquittal is granted by the trial court, this presumption is further strengthened.

Based on the above analysis, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s decision was reasonable and free from legal infirmity. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.

Conclusion

The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The High Court’s reliance on legal precedents highlights the careful consideration required when overturning acquittals. In this case, the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the failure to adequately address investigative gaps contributed to the decision to uphold the trial court’s judgment of acquittal.

Read the full judgement Below;

NSMxMjI4IzIwMTkjMSNO-Esmt5cZiTYA=