Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Jay Prakash Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand has held that the testimony of an eyes witnesses who has directly seen or heard the incident constitutes direct evidence. 

What was the Background of the Jay Prakash Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• In the present case, the appellant was employed as a Constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion. 
• On 18^th -19^th May 2014, the appellant was assigned sentry duty at Piparwar Armory (IRB-3 Camp) along with Umesh Kumar (Hawaldar) and three other Constables. 
• The appellant was officially allotted an INSAS Rifle with butt number 351, along with 100 round cartridges and 5 magazines for his duty. 
• The incident occurred around 7:30 PM when gunshots were heard at the camp. 
• The victim, Sunil Soren, who held the position of Sub-Inspector (S.I.), was found deceased in his room at the camp. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1878 (AA) 
• Physical evidence collected from the crime scene included: 
  • Eleven empty cartridges 
  • Blood-stained plaster 
  • One loaded magazine 
  • INSAS rifle 
• A post-mortem examination was conducted on 19th May 2014, which revealed six ante-mortem injuries on the deceased's body. 
• The prosecution presented ten witnesses during the trial, and three additional witnesses were examined as court witnesses. 
• Multiple documents were entered into evidence, including: 
  • Post-mortem report 
  • Seizure list 
  • Fardbeyan (First statement to police) 
  • Arms and ammunition inspection report 
• It was contended that this case was not of circumstantial evidence but of direct evidence. 
• The Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the AA Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Jharkhand High Court observed that: 
  • Regarding Witness Testimony: 
    • The court found one of the witnesses to be a direct eyewitness whose testimony remained undemolished during cross-examination 
    • The court found one of the witnesses’ testimony corroborated the informant's account. 
  • Regarding Evidence Chain: 
    • The court noted that this was not purely circumstantial evidence but included direct eyewitness. 
    • The court accepted Md. Ajmal Hussain’s explanation about the rifle exchange, clarifying why the appellant had rifle no.351 instead of his allocated rifle no.329 
  • On Evidentiary Value: 
    • The court found the informant's testimony relevant under Section 6 of Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
    • The appellant's statement about killing due to leave denial was considered as an extra-judicial confession 
    • The court noted that FIR was lodged the same day as the incident. 
    • The court found the physical evidence (seized items) corroborated the informant's testimony 
  • The court applied Section 60 of the IEA to establish one of the witness statement’s status as direct evidence. 
  • Section 157 of the IEA was referenced regarding corroboration of witness testimony 
  • Section 6 of the IEA was applied to establish the continuity of events as part of the same transaction 
  • The court observed the investigation officer's testimony corroborated the informant's version about incident location 
  • These observations led the court to find "no infirmity" in the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of AA act. 
• Therefore, the Jharkhand High Court affirmed the order of the trial court and held that the testimony of an eyes witness who has directly seen or heard the incident constitutes direct evidence. 

What is Direct Evidence? 

• The general rule is party to a suit is required to prove his cause before the court orally or by document in physical or electronic form. 
• Chapter IV of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) states the provisions related to oral evidences shall considered to be direct evidence. 
• Direct evidence is considered as substantive evidence and needs no further corroboration to prove or disprove the facts in issue. 
• There are two sections states under Chapter IV of BSA as: 
  • Section 54: This section states about proof of facts by oral evidence as: 
    • All facts, except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence. 
  • Section 55: This section states that Oral evidence to be direct as: 
    • Oral evidence shall be considered direct if: 
      • Any fact which is seen by a witness and such eyewitness admits that he has seen the same. 
      • Any fact which is heard by a witness and such witness must admit that he has heard the same. 
      • Any fact which could be perceived by any other senses and such a witness must admit that he has perceived the same. 
      • An opinion or the ground on which such opinion has been made by a witness and the witness must admit such opinion. 
      • It is Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable. 
      • It is provided further that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection. 

What is the Difference Between Direct & Circumstantial Evidence?