Pranav B Prem

In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that a conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary witness unless it inspires confidence and is wholly reliable. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary delivered this ruling while setting aside the conviction and sentence in a case riddled with inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's evidence.

Case Background
The case revolved around the brutal murder and alleged rape of a woman whose daughter was the informant. The informant reported that her mother, deserted by her father, was living with another individual who provided for her. According to the testimony, on the day of the incident, the individual, along with others, abducted the victim and subsequently committed rape and murder. The case was registered under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court.

Appeal and Observations
In the appeal, several issues were raised by the appellants, represented by Advocate Abhay Kumar Chaturvedi. The defense highlighted an unexplained delay of over one month in filing the FIR, which remained unaddressed by the prosecution. Additionally, the prosecution failed to provide crucial supporting evidence, such as a post-mortem or medico-legal report, to substantiate the allegations of rape and murder. The informant’s statements were also found to be riddled with contradictions, with discrepancies between her fardbeyan and protest petition.

Further complicating the case, independent witnesses from the neighborhood did not support the prosecution’s version of events. Several of these witnesses were declared hostile, further weakening the case. Despite these glaring deficiencies, the prosecution, represented by Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar, defended the Trial Court’s judgment but failed to effectively address the significant lapses.

The High Court noted that while the law allows a conviction to be based on the testimony of a solitary witness, such testimony must inspire confidence and be wholly reliable. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Law is settled that in a case where the testimony of the solitary witness inspires confidence and it is wholly reliable, it can be the basis for passing a judgment of conviction and sentence.” However, in this case, the court found the informant’s testimony to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration, rendering it insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Decision
Taking into account the absence of corroboration, the conflicting statements by the informant, and the prosecution's failure to provide essential evidence, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. The Bench emphasized the importance of presenting robust and reliable evidence to ensure justice, particularly in cases involving serious allegations like rape and murder.

Cause Title: Mithilesh Chauhan v. The State of Jharkhand

Case No: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 337 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 380 of 2002

Date: November-29-2024

Bench: Justice Ananda Sen, Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary 

[Read/Download order]