Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Eye-witnesses, when not reliable – Person brutally assaulted, received multiple injuries on vital parts, died – Appellants convicted u/s.302/34 – On appeal, held: Findings in question are based essentially on the testimony of parents of the deceased, PW-2 and PW-3, the alleged eye-witnesses – Allegedly, they saw their son being assaulted by two persons with weapon – PW-2 allegedly fell unconscious after seeing the blood oozing from the body of his son – Thus, it is difficult to appreciate that they would go home, take meal and go to bed without bothering about the welfare of their injured son – Such a conduct in normal course, would be unreasonable and unacceptable, as also observed by High Court – This coupled with the fact that they allegedly narrated the incident to PW-1 (deceased’s brother) only when he reached home after having seen his dead body and then the FIR was lodged next morning at 10 a.m – However, the High Court held that since the deceased was involved in several quarrels with other people to the knowledge of his parents and this background of the deceased explained their exit from the place of occurrence and also of their going to sleep – Not accepted – Prosecution case not supported by independent witnesses – Testimony of PW-2 and PW3 could not have been accepted as that of eye-witnesses to the incident – Hence, the appellants could not be convicted even if named in FIR – Prosecution is expected to prove its case and to substantiate the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Doubts reasonably arising in the matter were brushed aside by High Court – Approach of Trial Court accepting the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 observing that there was no reason for them to implicate anyone except the real culprit, is based on assumptions – On evidence, difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that appellants alone were the authors of the injuries – Order of High Court and Sessions Court set aside – Appellants acquitted.
Criminal Law – Concurrent findings of fact – Interference by Supreme Court – When appropriate – Held: Ordinarily, in an appeal by special leave against concurrent findings of fact, Supreme Court would not enter into re-appreciation of evidence – However, if the assessment of the Trial Court and High Court is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or any disregard to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, Supreme Court may consider interference in an appropriate case to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Law – “reasonable doubt” – What is – Held: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of the evidence in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka: (2009) Cri. L.J. 2422 (SC) – relied on.
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.