"Patna High Court Reviews Death Sentence Amid Eyewitness Contradictions and Evidence Gaps"

 


Introduction

The judgment at hand arises from the Patna High Court's decision in the case titled Death Reference No. 6 of 2021 and a series of connected criminal appeals. The case concerns the conviction of seven individuals: Ahmad Miyan, Raju Khan, Babli Miyan, Abdullah Qureshi, Khurshid Qurashi, Anwar Quraishi, and Taushif Miyan, who were charged and sentenced for their involvement in a shooting incident on December 6, 2018, resulting in the death of Imran and injury to two others.

Background of the Case

On December 6, 2018, an incident occurred at Shobha Market, Dharman Chowk, about 500 meters from the Ara Town Police Station. A group of assailants demanded Rs. 10 lakh as extortion money from the victims. Upon refusal, they fired indiscriminately, causing the death of Imran and injuries to Akil Ahmad (P.W.1) and Md. Farukh (P.W.3). The FIR was registered based on the written complaint of Akil Ahmad at 6:30 pm the same day.

Trial Court Decision

The Additional Sessions Judge-IXth, Bhojpur at Ara, found the accused guilty under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 387 read with 34, 120B of the IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The convicts were sentenced to death and fined Rs. 1 lakh each for murder, along with other rigorous imprisonments and fines for associated offenses.

Appeals and Grounds of Challenge

The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence on several grounds:

  1. Lack of reliable eyewitnesses.
  2. Discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and medical evidence.
  3. Failure to establish the place of occurrence.
  4. Withholding of material witnesses and evidence.
  5. Improper reliance on unreliable testimonies.
  6. Incorrect application of the rarest-of-rare doctrine for death penalty.

Analysis of Witness Testimonies

  • P.W.1 (Akil Ahmad): The informant who turned hostile and denied authoring the written complaint. He stated that the accused were not involved and claimed the written report was not read to him.
  • P.W.2 (Amir Faiyaj): Claimed to be present during the incident but admitted not seeing the shooters. His statement was not recorded during the investigation.
  • P.W.3 (Md. Farukh): An injured witness who could not identify the shooters.
  • P.W.4 (Suhaib): Claimed to be an eyewitness but his testimony was riddled with contradictions, especially regarding the timing and manner of the attack.

Inconsistencies and Issues Raised

  • The medical evidence suggested that the time of death contradicted the prosecution’s timeline.
  • The police failed to secure the crime scene or collect blood samples, contradicting claims made by witnesses.
  • Non-examination of key witnesses, such as the police officers who prepared the inquest report and seizure list, weakened the prosecution’s case.
  • Testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 did not corroborate P.W.4’s account of the incident.

Legal Considerations

  • The prosecution's failure to prove the chain of evidence and the discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies raised reasonable doubts.
  • The court was called upon to re-evaluate the application of the death penalty, particularly considering the absence of solid evidence.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision to examine the inconsistencies and unreliable evidence was essential in determining whether the conviction and sentencing were justified. The analysis suggests that the judgment should be revisited, especially concerning the imposition of the death penalty.

Read the full judgement Below;

NSM0NzAjMjAyMSMxI04=-2Yusyj8imVk=