9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Circumstantial Evidence 2. Motive and Conspiracy 3. Confessional Statement 4. Reliability of Witnesses 5. Jasa Chitthi (Ransom Note) Summary: 1. Circumstantial Evidence: The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses. The Trial Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish incriminating facts and circumstances that are consistent with the guilt of the accused and exclude any other reasonable hypothesis. The Trial Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable and acquitted the accused. The High Court, however, convicted the accused, believing the prosecution had proven the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Motive and Conspiracy: The prosecution suggested that the second accused, who was childless, had a deep desire for a child and was advised by a Sadhu to offer a tuft of hair from a young boy to a deity. The Trial Court found the evidence regarding motive and conspiracy unconvincing, noting that the Sadhu only asked for a tuft of hair, not the head of a child. The High Court did not provide strong reasons to contradict this finding. 3. Confessional Statement: The first accused retracted his confession during questioning u/s 313. The High Court used the confession as the basis for conviction, seeking corroboration from other evidence. However, the Supreme Court noted that the proper approach, as stated in Kashira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, is to first assess the evidence excluding the confession and only use the confession to support a conviction if the other evidence is credible. The Trial Court had found the confession unreliable due to lack of precautions and possible police interference. 4. Reliability of Witnesses: The Trial Court disbelieved key prosecution witnesses (PWs 7, 8, 11) due to inconsistencies and lack of credibility. The High Court did not provide convincing reasons to rely on these witnesses. The Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court's assessment, particularly noting that PW 6's testimony was not credible as she did not inform anyone about seeing the first accused with the child despite widespread knowledge of the child's disappearance. 5. Jasa Chitthi (Ransom Note): The prosecution claimed the Jasa Chitthi was written by the first accused at the behest of the second accused. The Trial Court found this part of the prosecution case unconvincing and artificial, noting that the ransom note was shown to a crowd but none of them were examined as witnesses. The High Court relied on the handwriting expert's opinion without critically examining the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court found this reliance misplaced and the prosecution's version artificial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants on all charges, giving them the benefit of doubt. The appellants were directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
|
