9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Conviction under Section 304 Part I of IPC upheld by High Court, Prosecution's version of events, Accusations against accused persons, Evidence of prosecution witnesses, Plea of right of private defence, Differentiation between accused persons, Reliability of prosecution evidence, Analysis of factual position, Discrepancies in witness statements, Confirmation of Trial Court's findings, Setting aside conviction and bail cancellation. Conviction Upheld by High Court: The appellant challenged the legality of the judgment by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that upheld his conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The High Court affirmed the sentence of eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine imposed on the appellant. The State also questioned the legality of the acquittal of the other accused persons involved in the case. Prosecution's Version and Accusations: Eight persons, including the appellant, faced trial for various offences under the IPC. The Trial Court found that the accusations against the accused were not established except for the appellant. The prosecution's story detailed the events of the incident, including assaults on multiple individuals, leading to the death of one person. The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed they acted in self-defence due to enmity and rivalry. Evidence and Plea of Right of Private Defence: The Trial Court found discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, leading to the acquittal of seven accused persons. However, the appellant's conviction was based on evidence indicating that he exceeded his right of private defence, even though the deceased had initiated the assaults. The High Court confirmed the Trial Court's conclusions and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Reliability of Prosecution Evidence and Analysis: The Trial Court analyzed the factual position in detail, highlighting discrepancies in witness statements and the lack of a consistent narrative regarding the incident's location and sequence of events. The prosecution witnesses' varying versions and unreliable testimonies raised doubts about the credibility of the evidence presented. The Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the accusations against the accused persons, including the appellant. Differentiation Between Accused Persons and Conviction Criteria: The judgment emphasized the importance of differentiating between accused persons based on the evidence presented. The Court cited legal precedents to explain that even if some prosecution evidence is unreliable, a conviction can still be made if the case against a specific accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, if the evidence is entirely unreliable and cannot separate truth from falsehood, a conviction cannot be sustained. Conclusion and Setting Aside Conviction: Based on the analysis of the evidence and the lack of a cogent prosecution case, the Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The appeal was allowed, and the bail bonds of the appellant were ordered to be cancelled. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing accusations beyond a reasonable doubt and the need for credible and consistent evidence in criminal cases.
|
