This judgment, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna on August 21, 2024, marks a significant turning point in the legal
proceedings stemming from Naugachia Police Station Case No. 149 of 2016. A
Division Bench comprising Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Ramesh Chand
Malviya overturned the earlier conviction and sentencing of five individuals by
the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Naugachia. The appeals filed
by Mukesh Kumar @ Tuntun @ Rajvir @ Tuntun Yadav, Arvind @ Arbind Yadav, Nand
Kishor Mandal, Pintu Singh, and Dhananjay Kumar were allowed, leading to their
acquittal of the charges leveled against them. This detailed analysis will
delve into the intricacies of the judgment, exploring the context of the case,
the grounds for the acquittal, and the implications of this decision.
Background of the Case:
The genesis of this legal battle lies in Naugachia P.S. Case
No. 149/16, dated August 20, 2016, registered at the Naugachia Police Station
in the district of Bhagalpur, Bihar. While the specific details of the alleged
crime are not explicitly elaborated upon in the provided snippets, the fact
that the trial proceeded to a judgment of conviction on August 19, 2017, and a
subsequent sentencing order on August 21, 2017, indicates the seriousness of
the charges involved. The appeals before the Patna High Court challenged this
conviction and the resulting sentences.
The Impugned Orders:
The Patna High Court specifically quashed and set aside two
orders passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Naugachia:
- Judgment
of Conviction dated August 19, 2017: This order found the appellants
guilty of the charges framed against them in connection with S.T. No. 5/17
(Trial No. 815/17), arising out of Naugachia P.S. Case No. 149/16. - Order
of Sentence dated August 21, 2017: This order specified the punishment
awarded to the appellants based on their conviction.
Grounds for Acquittal:
The judgment explicitly states the primary reason for
allowing the appeals and acquitting the appellants. Paragraph 25 highlights the
crucial finding of the Division Bench:
“…the depositions of the witnesses, who are near
relatives is not trustworthy and there are improvement, inconsistencies and
contradictions in their deposition.”
This single sentence encapsulates the core of the High
Court’s decision. It indicates that the prosecution’s case heavily relied on
the testimony of witnesses who were close relatives of the victim or involved
parties. The High Court found these depositions to be unreliable due to the
presence of:
- Improvements:
This suggests that the witnesses may have added details or altered their
accounts over time, potentially to strengthen the prosecution’s case or to
address inconsistencies that arose during the investigation or trial. Such
improvements can cast doubt on the veracity of the original statements. - Inconsistencies:
This refers to discrepancies within the testimony of a single witness or
contradictions between the accounts of different witnesses.
Inconsistencies can undermine the credibility of the witnesses and the
overall narrative presented by the prosecution. - Contradictions:
These are direct oppositions between different parts of a witness’s
statement or between the statements of different witnesses. Significant
contradictions can create serious doubts about the reliability of the
evidence presented.
The High Court’s observation that these unreliable witnesses
were “near relatives” is also significant. While the testimony of
relatives is not automatically deemed inadmissible, courts often exercise
greater caution when evaluating such evidence due to the potential for bias or
a vested interest in the outcome of the case. The presence of improvements,
inconsistencies, and contradictions in the depositions of these near relatives
further eroded their trustworthiness in the eyes of the appellate court.
The Decision and its Implications:
Based on the assessment of the witness testimonies, the
Division Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges
against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, paragraph 26 of
the judgment clearly states:
“Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
present case, the appeals stand allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction
dated 19.08.2017 and the order of sentence dated 21.08.2017 passed by learned
1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Naugachia in S.T. No. 5/17 (Trial
No. 815/17), arising out of Naugachia P.S. Case No. 149/16 are hereby quashed
and set aside.”
This order of acquittal has several important implications:
- Release
of the Appellants: The appellants, who were likely incarcerated
following their conviction and sentencing, would be released from custody
unless they are required in connection with any other case. - Reversal
of Justice: The judgment signifies a reversal of the earlier verdict.
The trial court had found the appellants guilty, but the High Court,
acting as an appellate authority, found insufficient reliable evidence to
uphold that conviction. - Emphasis
on Credible Evidence: The case underscores the fundamental principle
of criminal jurisprudence that a conviction must be based on credible and
reliable evidence that proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt. Mere suspicion or the testimony of witnesses with significant
inconsistencies cannot form the basis of a conviction. - Scrutiny
of Witness Testimony: The judgment highlights the crucial role of
appellate courts in scrutinizing the evidence presented before the trial
court, particularly the testimonies of witnesses. Appellate courts have
the power to re-evaluate the evidence and overturn findings of fact if
they deem them to be unsupported by reliable material. - Potential
for Further Action (Limited): While the appellants have been
acquitted, the State may have limited avenues for further legal recourse.
Generally, once an acquittal is granted by a High Court in a criminal
appeal, the possibility of further appeal to the Supreme Court is
restricted, particularly on matters of fact unless there is a significant
error of law.
The Importance of Detail (Missing in Snippet):
It is important to acknowledge that the provided snippets of
the judgment are concise and lack the detailed factual matrix of the case, the
specific charges against the appellants, the nature of the unreliable witness
testimonies, and the specific improvements, inconsistencies, and contradictions
identified by the High Court. A complete understanding of the judgment would
require access to the full text, which would elaborate on:
- The
Nature of the Crime: What specific offense(s) were the appellants
accused of? This would provide context for the witness testimonies and the
significance of the inconsistencies. - The
Evidence Presented: What other evidence, besides the testimonies of
the near relatives, was presented by the prosecution? Were there any
material witnesses who were not related? Were there any forensic or
documentary evidence? The absence of reliable supporting evidence likely
contributed to the High Court’s decision. - The
Specific Improvements, Inconsistencies, and Contradictions: Detailing
these would illustrate the precise reasons why the High Court deemed the
witness testimonies untrustworthy. For example, were there changes in the
sequence of events described, the identification of the accused, or the
details of the alleged crime? - The
Trial Court’s Reasoning: Why did the trial court find the testimonies
of these witnesses to be credible enough for a conviction? Understanding
the trial court’s rationale would provide a clearer picture of the
divergence in opinion between the two courts.
Conclusion:
The judgment of the Patna High Court in the appeals arising
from Naugachia P.S. Case No. 149/16 stands as a testament to the importance of
reliable and credible evidence in criminal trials. The acquittal of the five
appellants underscores the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of
proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and this burden cannot be discharged
solely on the basis of witness testimonies that are riddled with improvements,
inconsistencies, and contradictions, especially when those witnesses are near
relatives of the involved parties.
“The Scales of Justice Tip” in this instance
towards liberty, driven by a meticulous re-evaluation of the evidence presented
at trial. The High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the appellate
court’s crucial role in safeguarding against potential miscarriages of justice
by ensuring that convictions are founded on solid and trustworthy evidence.
While the specifics of the underlying crime remain undisclosed in these
snippets, the judgment itself speaks volumes about the paramount importance of
the quality and reliability of witness testimony in the pursuit of justice. The
appellants have been granted a reprieve, their convictions overturned, and
their freedom restored, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to upholding
the fundamental tenets of criminal law.
Read the full judgement Below;
