Chandigarh: Eyewitnesses can lie, circumstances do not, says court while awarding life term to murders

In a detailed judgment passed three days ago in which a local court sentenced a man to life imprisonment for stabbing a man to death in December 2022, the court relied solely on circumstantial evidence even as the main witness in the case had turned hostile.

The court of district and sessions judge Arunvir Vashista had sentenced 37-year-old Gurudutt Mishra to life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of ₹20,000 on him.

The court in the detailed judgment had stated how science and circumstances speak better than witnesses who can be influenced.

“We are living in a scientific age and science is affecting every aspect of our life deeply and immensely. With this development and advancement, time is also going to come when it would be difficult for the law enforcing agencies to find or procure eyewitnesses in order to prove the crime in every case. Thus, at the same time we are being ushered into the times when courts have to learn to give due weightage and importance to the scientific evidence produced before it in order to reach truth and to do justice,” said the court.

The court added that otherwise also, scientific evidence can greatly help courts in a better way than the oral testimony of eyewitnesses that could be subjected to or marred by so many types of influences, affecting adversely the degree of credibility and reliance that could be placed on it.

While on the contrary the circumstantial evidence is free from such outside influences and weaknesses, as it is truly said that a man may tell a lie but circumstances do not when proved to be so. If supported and backed by the scientific proof and science, they become individually conclusive about a specific fact.

Case dates back to December 2022

On December 12, 2022, Rishabh, a resident of Hallomajra, employed at Elante Mall, had walked out of the mall with his friend Ritesh, who also worked there, after their duty was over.

In his complaint to police, Rishabh stated that they hailed an auto and reached near Poultry Farm Chowk. As they alighted from the auto, a motorcyclist stopped near them and started stabbing both of them, shouting that he would kill them both.

Thereafter, the injured were taken to GMCH-32 for treatment in a PCR van. During investigation, accused Gurudutt Mishra was arrested. Ritesh, however, died during treatment and a murder case was registered against Mishra.

It later came to light that Mishra had earlier had an altercation with the victim at Elante Mall, which was the main provocation for the crime.

Disclosure statement had led to recovery of knife

Following his arrest, the accused, in his disclosure statement, revealed that he had kept concealed the knife he used in commission of crime in the bushes behind the bus stop of Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. The knife was eventually recovered.

What the court said on disclosure statement

“The disclosure statement leading to recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife is recorded the very next day of arrest of accused itself and accused is arrested next day from the night of incident. The investigation proceeds ahead and the quick progress it makes without leaving much interval between the sequence of events. All this left hardly any scope for manipulations, thus ruling out plantation of recovery as contended. So much so even the commonality of the recovered object i.e. knife (weapon of offence) and its easy availability in the market is absent for the reason that it was found to be blood stained and the blood on it matched with that of the sample taken from and preserved of the deceased. Further the nature of object was also more or less relevant to the crime as it clearly came in the statement of complainant that he and deceased were attacked by the assailant on their neck by a knife like sharp object,” the court observed in its order.

Main witness had turned hostile

During trial, the main eyewitness, who was also injured in the attack, turned hostile in court and deposed during cross-examination that he could not identify the assailant, as it was dark at that time. He had never identified him while he was accompanying police, he said. Thus, he was declared hostile by district attorney Manu Kakkar.