Conviction for murder overturned due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence
In a significant judgment, the Orissa High Court has acquitted Babu Das, previously convicted of the murder of Natabara Gouda, due to substantial doubts surrounding the prosecution's case. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sashikanta Mishra, overturned the trial court's decision, which had sentenced Das to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case centered on the alleged murder of Natabara Gouda, a practitioner of traditional healing, in May 2002. The prosecution argued that Das attacked Gouda with a lathi, suspecting him of witchcraft. However, key witnesses either turned hostile or provided inconsistent testimonies, undermining the prosecution's narrative.
The High Court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-11 and PW-12, who were crucial to the case. PW-11, who initially identified Das as the assailant, later retracted his statement, while PW-12, the deceased's son, was deemed an interested witness whose testimony lacked corroboration. The Court noted that 11 out of 15 prosecution witnesses turned hostile, further weakening the case.
The medical evidence, while confirming the homicidal nature of Gouda's death, failed to conclusively establish Das as the perpetrator without supportive ocular evidence. Additionally, the discovery of the alleged murder weapon, a lathi, was deemed unreliable due to the absence of corroborative testimony from independent sources.
The trial court's reliance on the "last seen" theory was also questioned, as inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the sequence of events and presence of the accused at the crime scene raised reasonable doubts.
The High Court emphasized that the prosecution's case must be free from reasonable doubts to sustain a conviction. It criticized the trial court for not addressing the evident gaps in evidence and for improperly shifting the burden of proof onto the defense.
Concluding that the prosecution's case was not free from reasonable doubts, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal. Babu Das, who was out on bail, has been discharged from his bail bond, provided he is not required in any other case.
Bottom line:-
The prosecution's case must be free from reasonable doubts to sustain a conviction. Apparent gaps in evidence and contradictions between witnesses can render the case unreliable, warranting acquittal of the accused.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 27, 3; Cr.P.C. Section 164.
AFR Babu Das v. State of Orissa, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2929658
