The top court has noted that the conviction was based on a the eyewitness account of a single person and even his account of the incident raised doubts
The Supreme Court (SC) recently called out the “shocking state of affairs” that led to a man suffering in jail for 16 years. The man was convicted in a murder case on the basis of the statement of a sole eyewitness, even though a serious doubt was created whether he had seen the incident of assault.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by Virendra Kumar Chamar against the Allahabad High Court and Fast Track Court’s judgments, holding him guilty in the case.
One Jaggilal, the brother of the deceased Harilal, was the complainant. He is the first informant. He stated that on June 20, 2005, his brother, deceased Harilal, was conversing with one Mohan Lal around 6:30 p.m.
At that time, accused numbers 1 and 2, holding pistols in their hand, and the present appellant (Chamar), holding a knife in his hand, came there with the intention of killing the deceased. Accused 1 and 2 fired on Harilal with their pistols. Harilal entered the deceased person’s house. He was shouting. The three accused, while chasing him, entered and again fired pistols. The appellant assaulted him by using a knife.
Ram Sumer was another brother of the deceased who also claimed to be an eyewitness.
Jaggilal, the brother of the deceased who had filed the complaint, died before the trial started.
The appellant’s conviction was based on evidence of Ram Sumer.
Appreciating the evidence of Ram Sumer, the bench noted that the case of the prosecution was that firearm injuries caused the death of the deceased.
The allegation against the appellant was that he was carrying a knife in his hand, and he assaulted the deceased after the bullets were fired on the deceased by the other two accused.
“Surprisingly, a charge under Section 34 of the IPC has not been framed against the appellant,” the bench said.
In his cross-examination, the court noted Ram Sumer admitted that he reached the spot two or three minutes after hearing the firing sounds.
He stated that when his brother Jaggilal and he reached there, people were shouting, and no one was standing near the spot. He answered in the cross-examination that he had not seen the actual incident of accused numbers 1 and 2 firing bullets at the deceased and accused number 3 (appellant) assaulting the deceased with a knife.
Thus, the bench found, his statement in the cross-examination indicated that the deceased had already died when he reached the scene of the offence. In the cross-examination, he further admitted that he did not know how many rounds were fired on the deceased Harilal because, at that time, he was at home.
“Thus, a serious doubt is created whether the witness (PW1 Ram Sumer) had seen the incident of assault by the accused. No other eyewitness was examined, though from the evidence of PW1, it is apparent that the incident happened at 6.30 pm. and that there were many people around,” the bench said.
“We are surprised to note that the courts have convicted the appellant only based on evidence of PW1—Ram Sumer. He has already undergone incarceration for sixteen years. This is a shocking state of affairs,” the bench added.
The court acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him, holding that his conviction cannot be sustained.
“The appellant shall be immediately set at liberty if he is not required to be detained in any other case,” the bench ordered.
