9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court setting aside conviction and sentence, credibility of eye witnesses, identification of accused, non-examination of injured witness, question of sentence. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the respondents, acquitting them of the charges. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not properly considered the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the eye witnesses, particularly PWs 1 and 5, and had based its decision on surmises and conjectures. The Supreme Court found the High Court judgment to be not in accordance with the law and bordering on perversity. It emphasized the credibility of the eye witnesses and their natural and straightforward testimony, dismissing the High Court's rejection of their evidence as partisan or interested witnesses. The Court also highlighted that the murder took place inside a house near midnight, making it unlikely for witnesses from outside to have seen the occurrence. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 5 was found to be consistent and truthful, with no significant contradictions under cross-examination. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of identification of the accused by PWs 1 and 5, emphasizing that there was sufficient light for them to identify the assailants based on the presence of a burning lantern near the courtyard. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning regarding the positioning of the accused that could have obstructed the view of the witnesses. Additionally, the non-examination of an injured witness, Mt. Sudama, was deemed irrelevant as the testimony of PWs 1 and 5 was considered sufficient to establish the prosecution's case. The Court also noted the concession made by the respondent's counsel regarding the impossibility of supporting the High Court's acquittal decision. Regarding the question of sentence, the Court agreed with the Sessions Judge's finding that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, considering that the appellants had already been acquitted once and in light of the circumstances, the Court decided not to impose the death penalty. Instead, the Court convicted the respondents under Section 302/34 IPC for the murders and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the decision of the Sessions Judge, modifying the sentence accordingly. The respondents who were on bail were directed to surrender and serve the remaining portion of their sentence.
|
