9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discrepancy between police investigation and private complaint. 2. Conflicting eyewitness testimonies. 3. Discrepancies between trial court and High Court judgments. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved a discrepancy between the police investigation and the private complaint filed by the deceased's brother. The police investigation led to the arrest and challan of different individuals than those named in the complaint. This led to the consolidation of two cases, one arising from the police challan and the other from the private complaint, before the Court of Session. The trial judge consolidated the cases and recorded evidence from different eyewitnesses, resulting in conflicting versions of the incident. 2. The conflicting eyewitness testimonies played a crucial role in the case. Witnesses from the police challan version testified that the appellant, along with others, was responsible for the deceased's death. In contrast, witnesses aligned with the private complaint version stated that different individuals, not included in the police challan, were the perpetrators. The medical evidence indicated two gunshot injuries and incised injuries on the deceased, adding complexity to the case. 3. The judgments delivered by the trial court and the High Court presented conflicting views on the evidence and testimonies. The trial court convicted the appellant and another individual based on the private complaint version, while the High Court accepted the police challan version and convicted only the appellant. The High Court's decision resulted in the acquittal of one accused but the conviction of the appellant, leading to incongruities and discrepancies in the legal proceedings. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC and canceling his bail bonds if applicable.
|
