2011 (12) TMI 515 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 448, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld?

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence under Sections 448, 324, and 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Differing conclusions by a Division Bench.
3. Credibility of eyewitness testimonies.
4. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).
5. Reliability of the prosecution's evidence.
6. Presumption of innocence and standard of proof in criminal cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentence under Sections 448, 324, and 302 read with Section 34 IPC:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court for offences under Sections 448, 324, and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court upheld this conviction and sentence.

2. Differing Conclusions by a Division Bench:
The appeal was initially heard by a Division Bench where one judge acquitted the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt, while the other judge upheld the conviction and sentence. This conflict necessitated the listing of the appeal before the current bench to resolve the issue.

3. Credibility of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of Mohd. Taheruddin (PW2), Md. Mustafa Ahmed (PW3), and Md. Hanif Ahmed (PW4). The court scrutinized these testimonies to determine their reliability:
- Mohd. Taheruddin (PW2): He was not an eyewitness to the killings but saw a mob attacking his house from a distance. His testimony did not identify specific individuals responsible for the murders.
- Md. Mustafa Ahmed (PW3): He did not witness the actual killings but observed the initial attack and recognized some assailants. He did not disclose the assailants' identities to the police immediately.
- Md. Hanif Ahmed (PW4): Claimed to have witnessed the murders from behind banana trees. However, the court found inconsistencies in his testimony, such as the absence of banana trees in the site plan and the improbability of identifying assailants in poor visibility conditions.

4. Delay in Lodging the First Information Report (FIR):
The FIR was registered late, and the court found no satisfactory explanation for this delay. The Investigating Officer did not record the eye witness account immediately, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The court cited precedents emphasizing the importance of promptly lodging the FIR to avoid embellishments and fabrications.

5. Reliability of the Prosecution's Evidence:
Several factors undermined the prosecution's case:
- The FIR was prepared after extensive deliberations with village elders, affecting its spontaneity.
- The site plan did not corroborate the presence of banana trees, as claimed by PW4.
- The medical evidence on the time of death conflicted with the prosecution's timeline.
- Non-examination of key witnesses like Zakir, who was injured in the incident, further weakened the case.

6. Presumption of Innocence and Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases:
The court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. The benefit of any doubt arising from faulty investigation or evidence must go to the accused.

Conclusion:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted, emphasizing the principle that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right.

← Previous Next →