9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of eyewitness testimony. 2. Delay in lodging the FIR. 3. Enmity between the parties. 4. Admissibility and truthfulness of the confessional statement u/s 15 of the TADA Act. Summary: 1. Validity of Eyewitness Testimony: The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, who were the sons of the deceased, Om Prakash. Despite the defense's contention that these witnesses were highly interested and thus unreliable, the court noted that mere relationship does not disqualify a witness. However, the court scrutinized their statements and found inconsistencies. Notably, all three witnesses testified to the presence of Kala Singh, who was already dead at the time of the incident, thereby casting significant doubt on their credibility. The court concluded that these witnesses were not stating the truth. 2. Delay in Lodging the FIR: The FIR was lodged after a delay, which the court found to be deliberate and meaningful. The court noted that although Surinder (P.W.11) stayed in the village, he did not lodge a report with the police. This delay, coupled with the fact that the FIR was registered after due deliberation, further weakened the prosecution's case. 3. Enmity Between the Parties: The court acknowledged the existence of enmity between the appellant and the family of Om Prakash, which included ongoing civil and criminal litigations. This enmity provided a motive for the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. The court found that the prosecution's witnesses were highly interested in securing the appellant's conviction due to this enmity. 4. Admissibility and Truthfulness of the Confessional Statement u/s 15 of the TADA Act: The appellant's confessional statement, recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Jind, was scrutinized. The court noted that the statement involved the participation of Kala Singh, who was already dead at the time of the incident. This rendered the confessional statement part of the "Hallucination" and not truthful. The court held that the confessional statement did not admit even substantially the basic facts of the prosecution story and was thus discarded. Conclusion: The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court had mechanically convicted the appellant without adequately considering the inconsistencies and falsehoods in the prosecution's case. The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 8.2.1994 was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in another case.
|
