9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against the judgment of acquittal by the Calcutta High Court - Conviction under Sections 302, 307 of IPC, and Section 25 of Arms Act - Accusations of murderous assault and serious injuries - Discrepancies between prosecution and defense versions - Evaluation of medical evidence and dying declaration Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Calcutta High Court's judgment acquitting the accused who had been found guilty by the trial court under Sections 302, 307 of IPC, and Section 25 of Arms Act. The incident involved murderous assaults and serious injuries inflicted on individuals, leading to the death of one person. The accused were alleged to have conspired to harm the complainant party over a property dispute, resulting in a violent confrontation where gunshots were fired, causing injuries and death. 2. The prosecution presented evidence from 21 witnesses, while the accused denied involvement and presented an alternative version of events. Initially, the defense claimed the gun was fired accidentally from a distance, but later at trial, they changed their stance to suggest a close-range firing. The trial court convicted the accused based on the evidence presented. 3. However, the Calcutta High Court directed acquittal, emphasizing discrepancies between the medical evidence and the prosecution's version of events. The court noted that the injuries sustained by the deceased were more consistent with a close-range gunshot, casting doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, the court found the dying declaration unreliable as it was not made voluntarily by the deceased but rather echoed her husband's statements. 4. The defense argued that the High Court's decision was justified, considering the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the medical evidence. They contended that when medical evidence contradicts ocular evidence, doubts can be raised about the truthfulness of witness testimony. The defense also highlighted the prosecution's attempt to modify its case to align with the medical evidence. 5. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the appellate court can review evidence in acquittal cases. The court reiterated the principle that if two views are possible, one favoring the accused should be adopted to prevent miscarriage of justice. In this case, the High Court's assessment of the evidence and rejection of the dying declaration were deemed appropriate, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision, thereby upholding the acquittal of the accused. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of carefully evaluating evidence, especially in cases where discrepancies exist between witness testimony and medical findings, to ensure justice is served.
|
