9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals filed by accused persons convicted for an incident in 1967, where the prosecution alleged assault resulting in death. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the High Court convicted them. The key issues include the timing of the victim's death, contradictions in prosecution evidence, lack of evidence supporting prosecution's version, and bias of witnesses. Timing of Victim's Death: The prosecution claimed the victim died at 3:00 PM on the day of the incident, but medical evidence suggested he died soon after 8:00 AM. The presence of undigested food in the victim's stomach contradicted the prosecution's timeline, raising doubts on the eyewitness accounts and dying declarations. The High Court failed to address this critical evidence, undermining the prosecution's case. Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence: The trial court highlighted various inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. There was no evidence that the villagers had started harvesting on the day of the incident, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Witness testimonies, including the informant and other eyewitnesses, were deemed unreliable and inconsistent. Moreover, the victim had ongoing disputes with multiple individuals, indicating potential motives for false accusations. Lack of Supporting Evidence: The trial court pointed out significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence, such as the lack of confirmation that the victim's land was harvested on the day in question. Witness testimonies regarding the assault and dying declarations were deemed unreliable and uncorroborated. The High Court failed to address these deficiencies, leading to a flawed conviction. Bias of Witnesses: The trial court noted that all prosecution witnesses had a vested interest in the victim, being either family members or associated with the prosecution party. The witnesses' credibility was questioned, especially considering the ongoing disputes involving the victim. The High Court did not adequately consider these biases, resulting in an unjust conviction. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and overturned the High Court's conviction, citing insufficient reasons for disregarding the trial court's acquittal and failing to address critical flaws in the prosecution's case.
|
