Court acquits man after 16 years in jail, cites contradictions in witness testimonies

The court directed the Bihar Director General of Police to submit an action-taken report within two months on the police officials involved, after observing that they had allegedly acted in connivance with "inimical witnesses" and prepared a false case against Jha.

In Short

• Judges found contradictions in testimonies of hostile and related prosecution witnesses
• Court noted independent witnesses were not examined despite serious doubts
• Investigators neither seized the torch nor verified lighting at scene

The Patna High Court has acquitted a man who spent 16 years in jail in connection with a 2000 murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges and that there was “no evidence” against him.

A division bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish, in its September 10 judgment, set aside the conviction of Ranjit Kumar Jha under Section 302 of the IPC by a trial court in Samastipur in connection with the murder of Pawan Kumar Jha.

The court also directed the Bihar Director General of Police to submit an action-taken report within two months on the police officials involved, after observing that they had allegedly acted in connivance with “inimical witnesses” and prepared a false case against Jha.

According to the prosecution, Jha had shot Pawan following a dispute over Rs 3,300. The informant, who was the deceased’s brother, claimed to have witnessed Jha fleeing the spot after the shooting.

The High Court, however, found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the “inimical witnesses” and questioned why independent witnesses were not examined.

The bench described the witnesses’ claim that they had seen Jha after the firing as “unreliable and unbelievable”. It also held that the prosecution had failed to establish the motive for the murder, noting that no investigation had been carried out into the alleged panchayati held over the money dispute.

The court also raised questions over the lighting conditions at the crime scene. Although the informant claimed to have used a torch, the torch was “neither produced nor seized”. The investigating officer, meanwhile, found no other source of light at the place of occurrence.

The handling of the alleged murder weapon also came under scrutiny. The court noted that although a pistol was recovered, it was not sent for forensic examination to determine whether it had fired the bullet recovered from the deceased.

“The pistol was found active, but it was not sent to the FSL to get a report as to whether the firing was done on the deceased by the said pistol on the date/time mentioned by the prosecution,” the court observed.

The bench further noted discrepancies in the registration and transmission of the FIR. While the FIR was shown to have been registered on October 5, 2000, it was received by the magistrate only on October 9.

The court said this circumstance “led to the conclusion that the FIR was antedated”.

“In result, this court finds that it is a case of no evidence against the appellant,” the bench said while acquitting Jha.

The court also made serious observations about the role of the police, stating that officials “right from the SHO to the IO, had allegedly acted in connivance with inimical witnesses” and “indulged in preparing a false case against the appellant”.

The bench also took note of Jha’s prolonged incarceration, which had reportedly resulted in mental illness and depression, as well as the delay in considering his premature release.

While ordering his acquittal, the court directed the state to ensure Jha’s rehabilitation and medical treatment. It also asked the authorities concerned to prepare a rehabilitation plan for him.

- Ends