The Patna High Court’s single-judge panel of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh ruled that an eyewitness’s account must be flawless and free of all doubt, ambiguity, and flaws.

Brief Facts:

The informant noticed that her gotias were taking water after digging karaha on her property, which she opposed. The accused then began assaulting her, and out of fear, she shut the door to the house. The informant’s spouse then arrived and warned her not to speak with the accused because they were bad people. The informant’s husband visited the home of the defendants, and the defendants themselves went up on their roof.

The informant was afraid and attempted to hide in the northwest corner of the roof as the accused were brandishing firearms, throwing brickbats from their roof to her roof, and threatening to kill the informant’s spouse. He was shot by the accused, and as he was being taken to the hospital, he collapsed and passed away. Sections 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act were used to establish the charges. The appellant was found guilty and condemned by the trial court.

Contentions of The Appellant:

The knowledgeable attorney for the appellant argued that the trial court’s decision should be overturned. Furthermore, it was argued that there are significant discrepancies between the ocular evidence and the results of the post-mortem investigation, casting doubt on the method of the incident. They also failed to establish the location of the incident to the court’s satisfaction.

Contentions of The State:

The knowledgeable attorney representing the state argued that the trial court’s decision does not need to be changed because the prosecution has shown its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, it was argued that the evidence as a whole is not disproven by the little discrepancies in the witness testimony.

Observations of The Court:

The Hon’ble court noted that there are discrepancies between the medical records that are on file and the assault claims against the appellant. Furthermore, the deceased’s shirt had no holes. As a result, the prosecution’s allegation of the manner of the incident has not been proven to the Court’s satisfaction.

Additionally, it was noted that an eyewitness must provide a precise account that is free of all doubt, ambiguity, and mistakes. It is quite clear in this case that there are significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.

It was noticed that the location of the incident as described by the prosecution is also quite dubious, which raises questions about the veracity of their claims.

Based on these factors, the court concluded that the prosecution had not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s judgment of guilt was invalid.

Judgment of The Court: The court granted the appeal following the instruction.

-Pragati Sengar