Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Conviction of the accused u/s.
302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the courts below – Ocular account of two prosecution witness that the assault on the deceased took place at night, however, neither of them lodged the FIR, rather, a named FIR lodged next day by the village chowkidar of neighbouring village, even though she was not an eye witness – Correctness: Held: Trial court as well as the High Court while appreciating the evidence did not properly address various aspects – Neither the trial court nor the High Court carefully considered the deposition of the village chowkidar who lodged a named FIR – Two eye witness were chance witness – Testimony of one inconsistent with his previous statement – His statement inconclusive as regards the assault being cause of death, thus cannot be relied upon to convict the accused for offence of murder – Testimony of the other one not such that it may on its own form the basis of conviction of the accused for the offence of murder – More so, it leaves many gaps in the prosecution story – Furthermore, the seizure of lathi and clothes from the accused cannot be considered as a clinching circumstance warranting conviction – In view thereof, prosecution not able to convincingly prove the genesis of the crime as also the manner in which the murder took place and by whom, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution gives rise to a strong probability of the killing being a consequence of mob action on the deceased for his alleged involvement with a lady of the village – Thus, taking into account the various circumstances, the accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Judgment and order of the courts below set aside. [Paras 14, 16,
18 and 19-26]
Delay/laches – FIR – Delay in lodging FIR – Absence of proper explanation – Duty of the court:
Held: Courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story – Delay gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work especially when there is high probability of no one witnessed the incident at night in an open place or a public street. [Para 19]
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.