9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's reversal of the acquittal order. 2. Credibility of prosecution witnesses. 3. Discrepancies in the prosecution's case. 4. Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 5. Prejudice to the accused due to non-availability of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Reversal of the Acquittal Order: The High Court of Rajasthan reversed the acquittal of Noor Khan by the Sessions Judge and convicted him for causing the death of Pratap. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court has full power to review the evidence and reach a different conclusion from the trial court. The High Court must, however, give proper weight to the views of the trial judge, presumption of innocence, the right of the accused to benefit from any doubt, and the trial judge's advantage of seeing the witnesses. 2. Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The Sessions Judge had acquitted Noor Khan based on the unreliability of prosecution witnesses, citing their enmity with the accused and lack of independent corroboration. However, the High Court found the testimonies of the injured witnesses (Ganesh, Prabhu, Mohan, and Gulab) credible, as their injuries corroborated their presence at the scene. The Supreme Court supported the High Court's reliance on these witnesses, noting that it was improbable they suffered injuries elsewhere and conspired to give false testimony. 3. Discrepancies in the Prosecution's Case: The Sessions Judge pointed out several discrepancies, such as the involvement of persons not present at the scene, conflicting accounts of who fired the first shot, and varying estimates of the distance from which the fatal shot was fired. The High Court, however, found these discrepancies insufficient to discard the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that minor inconsistencies in estimates given by illiterate villagers should not undermine the overall credibility of their testimonies. 4. Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements under CrPC: The accused argued that they were prejudiced because they were not provided with accurate statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The investigating officer had destroyed his notes and had statements written by another officer, which were later supplied to the accused. The Supreme Court acknowledged the procedural lapse but stated that such non-compliance does not automatically vitiate the trial unless it causes prejudice to the accused. 5. Prejudice to the Accused Due to Non-availability of Statements Recorded under Section 161 CrPC: The Supreme Court examined whether the procedural lapse caused prejudice to Noor Khan. The Court noted that the discrepancies in the statements were not substantial enough to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court found no evidence that the accused was prejudiced by the non-availability of the original statements, as the defense did not raise substantial arguments in this regard during the trial or appeal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of Noor Khan, finding no substantial infirmity in the High Court's reasoning. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence imposed on Noor Khan were affirmed. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards but concluded that the procedural lapses in this case did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
|
