In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1163/2018-SC- Not allowing relevant questions to be put to eye-witness, who is stated to be independent witness, causes serious prejudice to defence of accused: SC upholds acquittal order in murder case
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Pankaj Mithal [30-11-2023]

Read Order: CHANDRASEKHAR PATEL v. SURESH & ORS

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, December 20, 2023: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed in a murder case in view of several doubts created in the matter which raised questions about the credibility of witnesses.

In the appeal preferred by the convicted accused, the High Court passed an order of acquittal, which was challenged by way of two Appeals before the Top Court. One Criminal Appeal was preferred by the son (Chandrasekhar Patel) of the deceased, and the other Appeal was preferred by the State.

The incident, which was the subject matter of these Appeals, was of 6th March, 1996. There were five accused, who were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. One of them was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w Section 302 of the IPC. The offence alleged was of committing the murder of one Siddhnath Patel.

After carefully perusing the cross-examination of the first witness, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal was of the view that several material questions, which were very relevant, were not allowed to be put to the witness. The Bench was of the view that during the cross-examination of the witness, the Trial Court had disallowed several questions.

“…questions were put with the object of showing that the version of the witness was not truthful. The questions were put with the object of proving that the prosecution case was doubtful”, the Bench said.

Moreover other witnesses such as PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, who were alleged to be the eye-witnesses, did not depose before the Court about the presence of PW-1 near the scene of the offence. A serious doubt was also raised whether PW-3 had seen the incident.

It was also brought on record that there were houses around the place where the incident took place and the prayers were going on in the nearby Hanuman temple, a place close to the place of the incident but the Police had not made any attempt to record the statements of the other alleged eye-witnesses.

“An accused has a right to cross-examine a prosecution witness”, the Bench said while observing that certain material questions, which were very relevant, were not allowed to be put to the witness. “If the questions would have been allowed, there was a possibility that the answers might have been relevant to discredit the other witnesses”, the Bench further added.

“According to us, not allowing the relevant questions to be put to the eye-witness, who is stated to be the independent witness, causes serious prejudice to the defence of the accused”, the Bench stated while noting that it was too late now to remand the case to the Trial Court for further cross-examination of the said witness because a period of 27 years had elapsed from the date of the incident.

Finding that there were several doubts created which raised a question mark about the truthfulness of the version of the witnesses, it was also opined by the Bench that no attempt was not made to record the statements of the witnesses.

Thus, noting that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the High Court that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, was certainly a plausible conclusion which could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution, the Bench dismissed the appeals.