9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Presence of PW-4 and PW-5 at the place of occurrence. 2. Discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Presence of PW-4 and PW-5 at the place of occurrence: The prosecution claimed that PW-4 (father of the deceased) and PW-5 were present at the crime scene. The High Court doubted their presence, which was a significant factor in the acquittal of the accused. PW-4 stated he was in his fields adjacent to the road and was conversing with PW-5 when the incident occurred. PW-5's testimony was inconsistent; he admitted in cross-examination that he did not own land in village Lawan, contradicting his earlier statement. The court found PW-5 unreliable due to his shifting stance. The testimony of PW-9 Dhanjit Singh Patwari, who confirmed that PW-5's father owned land near PW-4's land, was also considered. However, the court found the presence of PWs 4 and 5 at the crime scene inherently improbable. Reasons included the unlikely scenario of PW-5 being at the location without owning land there, the improbability of the accused knowing the deceased's sudden plan to get medicine, and the unnatural conduct of PW-5 not accompanying the injured to the hospital. Additionally, the court noted the improbability of the accused loitering around the crime scene armed with weapons and the father (PW-4) not intervening despite witnessing his son being attacked. 2. Discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony: The High Court found a significant discrepancy between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. PW-4 and PW-5 described specific injuries inflicted by each accused, totaling eight injuries. However, the autopsy by Dr. Jagdish Gargi revealed 24 external injuries on the deceased, including multiple incised wounds and abrasions. The court noted that the time required to inflict 24 injuries would be substantial, making it improbable that PW-4 would remain a mere spectator. The inconsistency between the number of injuries described by the witnesses and those found during the autopsy further cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The court held that the discrepancy undermined the credibility of the eyewitnesses, making their presence at the crime scene doubtful. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the accused, finding no infirmity in the order. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of PWs 4 and 5 at the crime scene and highlighted the significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts. The court also noted that while there was a motive, it could not substitute for concrete proof of guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and the accused's bail bonds were canceled.
|
