The Chhattisgarh High Court has overturned a 2010 acquittal in a 2005 murder case, holding that the testimony of an injured eyewitness cannot be discarded merely due to minor contradictions if corroborated by other reliable evidence. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal convicted seven accused persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murder of one Raghunath in North Bastar’s Kanker district.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose out of Acquittal Appeal No. 407 of 2010, filed by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging the judgment dated 10.02.2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker in Sessions Trial No. 119/2008, wherein all the accused were acquitted of offences under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
According to the prosecution, on the night of 17-18 March 2005, about 25 armed Naxalites, allegedly accompanied by the accused — Surajram, Nohar Singh, Dhaniram, Durjan, Chaitram, Rameshwar, and Santosh — stormed the house of the deceased. The complainant Lachhuram, son of the deceased, was also injured in the incident and later lodged the FIR.
Raghunath was allegedly tied and beaten to death by sticks and fists by the accused and their accomplices. Lachhuram, who was also tied and assaulted, later informed villagers of the crime. Post-mortem revealed a stab wound and internal hemorrhage as the cause of death, which the doctor confirmed to be homicidal in nature.
Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The defense had highlighted contradictions in witness testimonies and the delay in naming certain accused in the FIR.
High Court’s Analysis
The High Court, in its detailed judgment authored by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, examined the testimonies of PW-1 Lachhuram (injured eyewitness) and PW-11 Pichobai (mother of the deceased), along with medical and forensic evidence.
The Court emphasized that minor contradictions in the testimony of an injured eyewitness cannot be the basis for outright rejection if the core narrative remains credible and is supported by corroborative material.
“The evidence of injured witness cannot ordinarily be doubted on account of minor contradictions and conviction can be based upon such evidence subject to corroboration with other incriminating factors,” the Court stated.
Quoting Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) and C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010), the Court reiterated that injured witnesses are presumed to speak the truth, as they are unlikely to shield the actual culprits.
The Bench also noted that while Rameshwar and Santosh were not initially named in the FIR, their names did appear in the Section 161 CrPC statement recorded on the same day. The court found this sufficient to rule out the possibility of false implication.
Legal Issues Addressed
- Can minor contradictions in the testimony of an injured eyewitness vitiate the prosecution’s case?
The Court answered in the negative, stating:
“Unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.” - Is corroboration with medical and forensic evidence enough to uphold a conviction under Section 302/149 IPC?
Yes. The Court held that the eyewitness account, supported by post-mortem and MLC reports, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. - What is the applicability of Section 149 IPC in cases involving unlawful assembly?
The Court reiterated that:
“The presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC, even if he did not individually commit the fatal act.”
Final Verdict
Setting aside the acquittal, the Court convicted all seven respondents under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. Each was sentenced to:
- Life imprisonment for the murder of Raghunath
- 5 years rigorous imprisonment for attempting to murder injured witness Lachhuram
- A total fine of Rs. 1,200 each, with additional simple imprisonment in default
The accused were directed to surrender within one month before the trial court. Failure to do so would result in their arrest and custody for serving the sentence.
Legal Representation
- For the State/Appellant: Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer
- For Accused Nos. 6 & 7: Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate
