‘Inconsistent eyewitness account should be discarded’

“In the instant case not only there is discrepancy as regards the place of occurrence, but also on several vital aspects like non-disclosure and non-possibility of identification,” the apex court observed, while dismissing an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh Government in a murder case.

The State government had filed an appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order which acquitted the accused sentenced to life imprisonment by the sessions court.

While the Sessions Court on the basis of eyewitness’ account convicted accused Makhan and others to life imprisonment, the High Court discarded the eyewitness’ accounts and acquitted them. Later, the Government appealed in the apex court.

Concurring with the findings of the High Court, the apex court said there were inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses particularly, the deceased’s wife Somti Bai.

For instance in the FIR, she stated that her husband was murdered at Kanji House Bazar Bohalla, but in court during the trial she had stated that the accused assaulted her husband at the residence of Deoli, the sarpanch of the gram panchayat.

Another eye-witness, Lachhu Bai, testified that the deceased was assaulted while he was returning from the house of the sarpanch.

Similarly, eyewitness Maniya Bai stated in her examination in court that she had seen the accused attack the deceased with fists and slaps, but in an earlier cross-examination she had stated that she came to know about the assault from Gomti Bai.

The apex court noted that at another place Lachhu Bai had stated that there was darkness and the faces of the accused were not visible.

“If that be so, the evidence of Somti Bai, Maniya Bai that they had clearly identified the accused persons cannot be disbelieved. It is true that even in darkness known persons can be identified from the manner of speech, style of walking and several other peculiar features.

But the evidence of Lacchu was to the effect that because of darkness one of the accused persons could not be identified,” deserves to be believed, the apex court said while upholding the acquittal order passed by the high court.