Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.307 – Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellants – Relying on ocular and medical evidence – High Court confirmed the sentence and conviction – Whether the sentence and conviction falls short of standard of beyond reasonable doubt:
Held: Trial court primarily relied on testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 – PW-1 is an injured witness and a relative of D1 – PW-2 is also an injured witness and a neighbor of D1 – The evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter – PW-2 deposed that were about 50 persons at the scene of the crime – Then, how has the non-examination of independent witness been countenanced by the prosecution is something that escapes, or rather confounds this Court – The evidence of PW-3 appears to be fraught with contradictions – His actions not to be akin to that of a prudent man – When A-1 had allegedly broken a bottle on the head of D1, PW-3 took the injured D1 not to the hospital but to an STD booth located nearby – Why a person would “hold” a person with a grievous head injury near an STD booth and not take him to the hospital – Significant delay in recording statements of PW-1 and PW-2 – Various lapses such as these cumulatively affect the overall sanctity of the prosecution case, making it fall short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt – Challenge on the grounds sustained, among others that,
(a) examined private persons were interested witnesses, with inconsistencies amongst them; (b) no independent witnesses were examined; (c) there was a delay in filing the FIR; (d) there were interpolations on record; (e) there were numerous lapses in the investigation; and (f) the medical and scientific evidence on record does not support the prosecution’s version of events. [Paras 31, 33, 36, 39, 41, 47,48]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 307– Role of an investigating officer is that of the backbone of the entire criminal proceeding in respect of the particular offence(s) he is charged with investigating – Faulty Investigation - Examined. Held: The investigation officer of a case is the charioteer tasked with using the resources and personnel at his disposal to ensure law and order as also that a person who has committed a crime is brought to the book – Nowhere has it come on record as to how the investigating officer (PW-22) reached the bus stand from where A-2 was arrested – who informed the authorities about A-2’s movement by bus – PW-22 made two visits to the scene of the crime and that he also examined several witnesses - how is there a striking lack of independent witnesses to lend credence to the prosecution’s version of events – He also did not conduct any scientific investigation at the spot of crime – The wound certificate for PW-1 and PW-2 was issued by Doctor, who had not been examined in the instant proceedings – Was it that the initial investigation was being managed so as to shield the real assailants, which could have been the complainant party themselves? – Particularly when, as the record reveals, as is so admitted by PW-22 of A-2 being a practicing advocate who has been, (i) pursuing the matters against the officials of the police station (ii) has been lodging complaints against the police officials for inaction; and (iii) had nothing to do with the ownership, management or control of the wine shop – The injured witnesses and the Investigation Officer in their testimony together are not inspiring confidence – The prosecution case stands shaken beyond a point to which no conviction resting thereupon can be said to be just in the eyes of law – appeals are allowed and the convictions accordingly set aside. [Paras 43, 44, 46, 47]
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.