Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently noted "a shocking state of affairs" where that a man had been imprisoned for 16 years following a murder conviction based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness. This was despite significant doubt about whether the eyewitness had actually witnessed the assault.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by one Virendra Kumar Chamar against the Allahabad High Court and Fast Track Court's judgments, holding him guilty in the case.

One Jaggilal, a brother of the deceased Harilal, was the complainant in the case. He was the first informant. Jaggilal stated that on June 20, 2005, his brother, deceased Harilal, was conversing with one Mohan Lal at around 6:30 p.m. At that time, accused number 1 and 2, holding pistols in their hand, and Virendra Kumar Chamar (the present appellant), holding a knife in his hand, came there intending to kill the deceased. Accused nos 1 and 2 fired on Harilal with their pistols. Harilal entered one Mevalal’s house. He was shouting. The three accused, while chasing him, entered Mevalal’s house and again fired pistols. The appellant assaulted him by using a knife, the informant claimed. 

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 present 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, it noted. 

"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 had admitted that he reached the spot two or three minutes after hearing the firing sounds. 

Court pointed out that Ram Sumer had stated that when he and his brother Jaggilal reached there, people were shouting, and no one was standing near the spot. Ram Sumer answered in the cross-examination that he had not seen the actual incident of accused nos 1 and 2 firing bullets at the deceased and accused no 3 (appellant) assaulting the deceased with a knife. 

Thus, the bench found that Ram Sumer's 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, it pointed out.

"Thus, a serious doubt is created whether PW1 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.

Therefore, the court acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him, holding that his conviction could not 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.

Case Title: Virendra Kumar Chamar Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh