9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of identification parade vitiating the trial. 2. Conflict between medical evidence and prosecution's timeline of the assault. 3. Reliability of eyewitnesses. 4. Number and nature of injuries. 5. Alleged premeditation and enmity. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Identification Parade: The appellants argued that the trial was vitiated due to the failure to conduct an identification parade. The prosecution contended that the accused were well-known to the witnesses, rendering the identification parade unnecessary. The court cited multiple precedents, including *Sajjan Singh v. Emperor* and *State of U.P. v. Jagnoo*, which discuss the prudence of holding identification parades. The court concluded that while the reasons given by the Public Prosecutor and the Additional District Magistrate for not holding the parade were not valid, the fact that P.W. 2 knew the accused from before justified the decision. Thus, the trial was not vitiated by the denial of the identification parade. 2. Conflict Between Medical Evidence and Prosecution's Timeline: The defense argued that the medical evidence conflicted with the prosecution's timeline, suggesting that the deceased was murdered between 3 and 4 a.m., based on the state of the stomach and intestines. The court, however, found that the medical evidence was consistent with the prosecution's case. The doctor testified that the stomach could be empty by 2 or 2:30 a.m. if the deceased had eaten at 8 p.m. the previous day. The court dismissed the defense's argument, emphasizing that it was unlikely the deceased would leave at 3 a.m. to catch a bus scheduled for 7 a.m. 3. Reliability of Eyewitnesses: The court examined the credibility of the eyewitnesses, Prem Narain, Mahesh Chandra, and Dwarka Prasad. The Sessions Judge and the High Court both found the eyewitnesses reliable. The court noted that Mahesh Chandra and Dwarka Prasad had no affinity with the deceased and no animosity towards the appellants. Additionally, Mahesh Chandra had known the accused for about four years, and Dwarka Prasad had seen them before, further supporting their reliability. 4. Number and Nature of Injuries: The defense contended that the number and nature of injuries (34 injuries) were inconsistent with the prosecution's story. The court, however, did not find this argument compelling enough to discredit the prosecution's case. The injuries were consistent with the nature of the attack described by the eyewitnesses. 5. Alleged Premeditation and Enmity: The court acknowledged the pre-existing enmity between the deceased and the appellants. The deceased had previously reported threats to his life from the appellants. This background supported the prosecution's narrative of premeditated murder, carried out in furtherance of the appellants' common intention. Conclusion: The court found no merit in the appellants' arguments. The denial of the identification parade did not vitiate the trial, the medical evidence was consistent with the prosecution's timeline, and the eyewitnesses were reliable. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld.
|
