9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction of Hate Singh for the murder of Shiv Singh. 2. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies. 3. Medical evidence and its interpretation. 4. Seizure and condition of the guns used in the crime. 5. Statements of the accused and their consistency. 6. Absconding of the accused and its implications. 7. Reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction of Hate Singh for the murder of Shiv Singh: The Supreme Court examined the conviction of Hate Singh, who was accused of murdering Shiv Singh. The Madhya Bharat High Court had confirmed the conviction and sentence of death. However, the Supreme Court found significant doubts in the evidence against Hate Singh, leading to the appeal being allowed and the conviction and sentence being set aside. 2. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies: The Court scrutinized the testimonies of the eyewitnesses who implicated both Bheru Singh and Hate Singh. The Court noted that while the testimonies were believed against Bheru Singh, there were special reasons to doubt their reliability against Hate Singh. The Court highlighted inconsistencies and fabrications in the eyewitness accounts, particularly pointing out that the witnesses changed their statements regarding which accused carried which gun and who fired the shots. 3. Medical Evidence and Its Interpretation: The medical evidence revealed that Shiv Singh had three gunshot wounds, any of which could have been fatal. The doctor testified that all three wounds could have been caused by a single discharge from a gun. This medical evidence did not disprove the defense version that Bheru Singh fired both shots, as the wounds could have been caused by a single shot or two shots fired by one person. 4. Seizure and Condition of the Guns Used in the Crime: The Court examined the seizure and condition of the guns. Art. D, a double-barrel breech-loading gun, was found buried on Hate Singh's premises, while Art. E, a single-barrel muzzle loader, was found openly. The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence regarding whether Art. D was found loaded. The defense version, supported by witness Vajeram, indicated that only Art. E was loaded, aligning with the defense's claim that Bheru Singh fired both shots. 5. Statements of the Accused and Their Consistency: The Court emphasized the importance of the statements made by the accused under Sections 208, 209, and 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hate Singh consistently denied involvement in the shooting, while Bheru Singh admitted to firing the shots. The Court found that the consistent and early statements of the accused lent credibility to their defense. 6. Absconding of the Accused and Its Implications: The Court noted that both accused had absconded but criticized the prosecution for not putting this fact to the accused for an explanation. The Court reiterated the importance of allowing the accused to explain material facts used against them. 7. Reasonable Doubt in the Prosecution's Case: The Court found that the prosecution failed to remove the grave doubts raised by the defense. The inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies, the alignment of the defense version with the medical and seizure evidence, and the failure to recover the bullets or shot all contributed to the reasonable doubt. The Court stressed that a reasonable and probable defense story, when pitted against a weak prosecution case, must result in the benefit of the doubt being given to the accused. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of Hate Singh were set aside. The Court ordered that Hate Singh be restored to liberty.
|
