PATNA, India, Oct. 14 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 15:

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 413 of the B.N.S.S. against judgment of acquittal dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge-1st, Masaurhi, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1992, arising out of Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 71 of 1991, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections 148 and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.04.1991 at about 06:00 a.m., when the informant's father Late Bhuvaneshwar Prasad came to his house after defecating, then Chamru Prasad, Shiv Prasad, Upendra Prasad, Brijlala Prasad, Santlal Prasad and Yadunandan Prasad all came to his house. Chamru Prasad was carrying a lathi, Shiv Prasad a spade, Upendra Prasad a khanti, Brijlal Prasad and Santlal Prasad a stick and Yajunandan an iron rod. As soon as they arrived, they started abusing his father and, upon resistance, they started hitting him with the weapons in their hands. The spade hit his head and blood started oozing. He was hit on his head, back and chest by khanti and lathi. His father became unconscious and fell at the door. He was then taken to Dhanarua Police Station. The Police Inspector told to take him to Block Hospital. He was then referred to P.M.C.H from the Block Hospital, where he died during his treatment.

3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 71 of 1991 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up by the police. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under Sections 148, 149 and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 148, 302/34 of Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1- Ramuna Devi, PW2- Rajkumari, PW3- Kamlesh Prasad, PW4- Kanti Devi, PW5- Vijay Prasad (informant), PW6- Nawal Yadav, PW7- Siyasaran Prasad, PW8- Subalal and PW9- Jainandan Prasad @ Jainath. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons.

5. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the materials available on record and the evidence produced before the Court, acquitted the accused persons observing that there is no uniformity in the evidence presented by the witnesses. There is a considerable difference in the evidence regarding the presence of witnesses at the place of incident. Allegedly, there was a land dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. The learned Trial Court also observed that there is a lack of corroborative evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 are the eye-witnesses who have fully supported the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case while the evidence is sufficient enough to prove the case.

7. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is no perversity in the judgment of the learned Trial Court, and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused before the learned Trial Court. He has further submitted that PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 have been declared hostile and PW-9 has not supported the case of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer and the Doctor have not been examined and the place of occurrence also could not be proved because of the nonexamination of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the order of the learned Trial Court requires no interference in the present case.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have also gone through the records of the case.

9. The sole question that requires consideration by this Court is whether the impugned judgment requires any interference by this Court.

10. On a comprehensive consideration of the materials available record, this Court finds that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses suffers from contradictions, and such inconsistencies go to the root of the case. It is well settled that minor discrepancies may not discredit the testimony of a witness, but material contradictions which affect the core of the prosecution case render the evidence unreliable. In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 505, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that contradictions of a material nature cannot be ignored, as they shake the foundation of the case, as observed in Para-10 of the judgment, which reads as under:

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMyODkjMjAyNSMxI04=-pJSxkeGymvs=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.