While hearing a case in which the witness said after a year that he “saw” the men convicted of murder, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the “delay” in providing evidence crucial questions raised doubts about the veracity of the star witness’s statements. testimony.

Noting that there were no direct eyewitnesses and the alleged attackers were not immediately identified, the court observed that the main circumstantial evidence could be easily disputed.

A single judge bench composed of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was hearing the bail application filed by two men accused of murdering the complainant’s father.

The complainant alleged that while his father was sleeping at home, two individuals came with their faces covered and brutally attacked his father, which ultimately led to his death. As they were fleeing, a man (star witness) passing the complainant’s house witnessed the attackers and recognized them as the accused.

Going through the records of the case, the High Court pointed out that no person had been named by the complainant in the FIR and his identity had not been disclosed. The court observed that the complainant also did not express “suspicion” against anyone or mention “enmity or rivalry” with anyone. He further clarified that the statements of the star witness, who had claimed to have seen the accused flee after the attack, were made a year after the alleged incident.

The court noted that the witness stated that he informed the family of the deceased of this information at that time. However, neither the complainant nor any family member passed this information to the police “immediately after the incident”, he added. The Court also found that no specific details identifying the accused’s motorcycle, or any other concrete evidence, had been provided by the star witness.

In this context, the Court considered that in light of the statements of the star witness recorded a year after the incident, the absence of such crucial facts during the investigation “weakened” the prosecution’s case.

“The delay in providing crucial evidence prima facie creates doubts about the accuracy and veracity of his (star witness) testimony.“, he added.

He further observed that there was “no direct eyewitness testimony” regarding the killing, and the identity of the attackers was “neither immediately known nor disclosed.”

Noting that the key evidence appeared to be “circumstantial” – based on statements from the star witness that were made later – the court said it could “easily be challenged”.

He further observed that the complainant has not expressed any suspicion or pre-existing enmity towards anyone, “which, at first glance, indicates the absence of a direct motive linked to the incident.

Further, the Court referred to the accused’s alleged motive in light of the fact that the deceased had murdered the accused’s father in 2012 and was released on bail in 2018; the accused would therefore have murdered the deceased to take “revenge”. However, the High Court found that the motive arising from an event in 2012 appeared at first glance speculative, distant in time and difficult to establish conclusively since the key witness had come forward only a year after the incident .

Taking note of the record, the arguments advanced and the fact that the trial appears to be taking time, the High Court, without going into the merits, allowed the bail application.

Case title: Mahesh Kumar and Anr. against the State of Rajasthan

Quote: 2024 Live Act (Raj) 312

Click here to read/download the order