Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25, 27 – Murder – Appellant and one co-accused guilty of the alleged offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – One co-accused absconded and three other co-accused acquitted of all the charges – High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court – Correctness:
Held: Trial court and the High Court well appreciated the oral version of the two eyewitnesses in its true perspective and correctly – All other relevant aspects of the matter looked into threadbare – Just because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the appellant not recovered or discovered u/s.27 of the Evidence Act at any point of time during the course of the investigation would not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses doubtful – Once the case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence, motive pales into insignificance – Despite there being a delay of 2 years 5 months in uploading the judgment by the High Court, the oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspires confidence and nothing on record in the form of any intrinsic evidence to render their testimony doubtful. [Paras 30, 35, 40, 42, 45, 48] Judicial deprecation – Delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the Judgment after a period of about 2 years 5 months – Is a matter of grave concern – Serious cognizance taken of the delay at the instance of the High Court – Practice of few High Courts to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a substantial length of time uploading the reasoned judgment, has been deprecated – This practice deprives the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal more particularly in criminal matters wherein the appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court – Thus, there should be no delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is pronounced. [Paras 41, 43, 48]
Evidence – Ocular evidence – Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case – Stated. [Paras 32-34]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.