Penal Code – ss.304, Part-I and 307 – Prosecution case that some women were attending marriage celebration when the accusedrespondent hurled a burning cow dung cake at them and caused serious burn injuries to them – While undergoing treatment two women died – Accordingly, charges u/ss.307, 302 were levelled against the accused-respondent – However, trial Court upon finding that there was no proof that the accused had intentionally killed the deceased made him liable to be punished u/s.304, Part-I instead of s.302 and convicted him u/ss.307 and 304,Part-I – High Court acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges – On appeal, held: In instant case, admittedly there was no enmity between the accused and the victims – Out of 12 prosecution witnesses, 5 witnesses (including two injured) did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile – There were material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses (PW-5, PW-7) on which the State has heavily relied on – FIR was lodged 13 days after the incident and there was no plausible explanation for this inordinate delay – Further, there was huge delay in recording the statements of the witnesses with no explanation for the same – High Court has thoroughly considered all aspects of the case and rightly taken them into account and reached the correct conclusion that this is certainly not a case where the guilt of the accused could be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, admittedly there was no enmity between the accused and the victims. Out of the 12 prosecution witnesses, injured (PW 1), (PW 3), (PW 4), injured (PW 6) and (PW 8), did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. As far as the statements of alleged eyewitnesses P.W.5 and P.W.7 are concerned, on which counsel for the State has heavily relied on, there were material contradictions inasmuch as PW 5 in her cross examination stated that when the incident took place it was moonless night, the area was surrounded in darkness as there was no light and one cannot identify another. She also admitted that she heard the name of the accused for the first time after the incident. However, (P.W.7) contradicted the same. In his deposition he stated that in the light of the gas light all persons were visible. It did not happen that electricity supply was cut and it became dark. [Para 9][500G-H; 501-A-B]
2. Another discrepancy in the prosecution case is that the First Information Report was lodged on 16.06.1994 i.e. 13 days after the incident and there is no plausible explanation coming forth from the prosecution for this inordinate delay. Also, the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 28.06.1994 and there is no explanation of such huge delay in recording the statements.[Para 10][501-B-C]
3. In the instant case, the High Court has thoroughly considered all aspects of the case and rightly taken them into account. Only after considering the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the circumstances in which the incident occurred, the High Court reached to the correct conclusion that this is certainly not a case where the guilt of the accused could be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt and in a great detail, expressed the reasons for its conclusion. [Para 11][501-D-E]
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.