Penal Code, 1860: ss. 34, 302, 307 – Murder – On the fateful day, while the victim-principal of the College was sitting with his family physician and private practitioner-PW-6 outside his office of the college campus, three persons, A-1, A-2, and A-3, allegedly entered the verandah and fired gunshots at the principal as well as at PW-6, and fled – First aid given to the principal and thereafter taken to Police Station on bullock cart – FIR lodged by the victim, thereafter sent to hospital where he died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries caused by several gun shots – Trial court convicted the accused persons u/s 302, 307 r/w s.34 – High Court upheld the order – Meanwhile A-2 passed away – As regards A-1 and A-3 held : There are certain glaring contractions in the evidences produced – Failure of prosecution to recover blood-stained materials from the place of occurrence, empty cartridges, pellets, or any other weapon used for commission of the crime, coupled with the contradictions and unnatural conduct of the eye witnesses, and the inconsistencies in the two dying declarations – Prosecution has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt – Thus, the accused entitled to benefit of doubt, and acquitted from all charges. Meghraj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188 : [1994] 3 SCR 592; Ram Sewak and Ors. v. State of M.P. [(2004) 11 SCC 259 : 2004 (1) Suppl. JT 217; Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka (2007) 13 SCC 112 : [2007] 8 SCR 713 - referred to.
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.