In a criminal trial, there is no legal impediment to relying upon the testimony of a sole eyewitness, but it should be trustworthy, the Jharkhand High Court said. (Image generated using AI)Jharkhand High Court news: The Jharkhand High Court recently acquitted two accused in a 31-year-old murder case, holding that it is not the number but the quality of evidence that matters, and that evidence must be weighed and not counted.Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai set aside the 1998 conviction of Nundeo Mehra and others in the murder of Santu Mehra, noting that several co-accused had died during the pendency of the appeal. Justices Sujit N Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai set aside the 1998 conviction of Nundeo Mehra and others.“In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted,” the high court said in its March 12 order.Also Read | ‘False allegations of impotency against husband mental cruelty’: Jharkhand High Court upholds man’s divorce over ‘anguish’Enmity, murder and convictionThe prosecution claimed that in February 1995, the victim’s daughter-in-law Daya Devi was sitting at the verandah of the house after having a meal.The accused persons came to the verandah and searched for her husband Kisto Mehra.The prosecution said that unable to find the woman’s husband, the accused dragged out her father-in-law, Santu Mehra, aged about 65 years, and assaulted and killed him.It was stated that the motive for the occurrence was that there was an old enmity and litigation with the accused, due to which they murdered the father-in-law.After investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the accused/appellants for the offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the case was committed to the trial court.The trial court convicted the accused, which was challenged in this appeal.Also Read | P stands for public: Why Jharkhand High Court rejected man’s PIL over medical negligence in father’s treatment‘Quality over quantity’The judgment of conviction can be passed based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and inspire confidence in the mind of the court.Courts are concerned with the quality and not the quantity of evidence, and in a criminal trial, there is no legal impediment to relying upon the testimony of a sole eyewitness.The veracity of the prosecution’s case on the point that the deadly assault on the victim was alleged to be made by the accused, Nundeo Mehra, has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.The defence witness is also to be given equal weight as is to be given to the prosecution witnesses.The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole. The relevant parts which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the defence.The principle of ‘benefit of doubt’ belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence.Also Read | ‘No point sailing dead wood’: Jharkhand High Court ends couple’s 20-year ‘lifeless relationship’ with Rs 50 lakh alimonyThe doctrine of ‘benefit of doubt’ can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.The trial court, based on wrong assumptions and surmises, had come to the finding that the testimony of the daughter-in-law was trustworthy and reliable and based upon that, convicted the accused persons.The prosecution, however, failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused.The conviction order of 1998 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.Since the accused are on bail, they are acquitted of their criminal liability and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.The high court directed the state legal services authority to pay remuneration to the amicus curiae, Parambir Singh Bajaj, for his assistance rendered.‘Credentials doubtful’Appearing for the accused, amicus curiae Parambir Singh Bajaj submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.It has been contended that the accused are alleged to have been convicted based on the statement of the sole eyewitness, the daughter-in-law, whose credentials are doubtful, as both parties were on inimical terms.The daughter-in-law has stated that she had seen one of the accused, who assaulted her father-in-law in the light of an earthen lamp, and another – armed with a lathi, axe and knife – was standing near the place of occurrence.Bajaj emphasised that, however, the said earthen lamp was not seized by the police, nor was it exhibited.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:brutal murderJharkhand High Court