Administration of Criminal Justice – Reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Conviction unsustainable: Held: There is sufficient material on record giving rise to reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Appellants were able to poke holes in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW7 – This conclusion is only fortified as co-accused A1 and A7 were acquitted and thus, the conspiracy angle dehors the said main conspirators, who are the masterminds as per the prosecution, cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Undisputedly, the four persons in the car on the fateful date were (1) the deceased; (2) PW1; (3) assailant/shooter, who is absconding, and (4) A3 – Admittedly, the appellants were not present at the spot where the crime was committed i.e., in the car nor any direct/specific role in commission of the offence being attributed to them and thus, their convictions cannot be upheld – Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra reported as [1971] 1 SCR 119 relied on by the High Court does not, in any manner, militate against this Court overturning a conviction when reasonable doubt emanates – Appeals allowed. [Paras 13 and 17]
Administration of Criminal Justice – Reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the prosecution:
Held: When this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence – Life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with, and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt – The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities – Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles
21 and 14 of the Constitution of India – The presumption of innocence is a human right. [Paras 18 and 20]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala (2001) 7 SCC 596 – held inapplicable.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Gopal (1988) 4 SCC 302 : [1988]
2 Suppl. SCR 391; Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 610; Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 10 SCC 699 : [2004] 3 SCR 1148; Ranjeetsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 : [2005] 3 SCR 345; Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978)
1 SCC 240 : [1978] 2 SCR 371 – relied on.
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 885 : [1971] 1 SCR 119; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharkole, (2004) 13 SCC 308 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 780 – referred to. Coffin v. United States, 156 US 432 (1895) – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.