9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of eyewitnesses. 2. Reliability of the dying declarations. 3. Validity of the confession. 4. High Court's reversal of the acquittal by the Sessions Judge. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The primary eyewitnesses, Rameshwar (P.W. 7) and Kishan Chand (P.W. 8), testified that the appellant administered 'churan' to the boys. The Sessions Judge found their evidence unreliable, noting discrepancies and potential bias. Rameshwar admitted to a dispute with the accused's father, and Kishan Chand's testimony contained material inconsistencies. The High Court, however, accepted their testimonies. Upon review, the Supreme Court endorsed the Sessions Judge's skepticism, highlighting that the witnesses' statements were inconsistent and appeared motivated by personal animosity. 2. Reliability of the Dying Declarations: The boys' family members testified that the boys had stated the appellant gave them 'churan'. The Sessions Judge found this evidence exaggerated and unreliable, while the High Court accepted it. The Supreme Court noted significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the family members and emphasized that Dr. Ram Parkash, an independent witness, did not hear any mention of 'churan' from the boys or their parents. This cast doubt on the credibility of the family members' statements, suggesting they were likely fabricated post-event. 3. Validity of the Confession: The appellant's confession, made before a magistrate, detailed the purchase and administration of poison. However, it was retracted shortly after. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that a retracted confession requires corroboration in material particulars. The evidence presented contradicted the confession rather than supporting it. For instance, no traces of poison were found in the pestle, mortar, or sand, and no corroborative testimony was provided regarding the purchase of poison. Thus, the confession was deemed unreliable. 4. High Court's Reversal of the Acquittal by the Sessions Judge: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not providing substantial and compelling reasons to overturn the acquittal. The High Court failed to address the material discrepancies highlighted by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court referenced the principle from 'Surajpal Singh v. State' and 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', emphasizing the need for appellate courts to give due weight to the trial court's findings, especially when the trial judge had the advantage of observing the witnesses firsthand. The High Court's decision lacked a thorough discussion of the evidence and did not satisfactorily explain the reversal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's conviction, and restored the Sessions Judge's acquittal order. The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence, the necessity of corroboration for retracted confessions, and the deference appellate courts should give to trial courts' findings.
|
