9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conflict between the testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence. 2. Inordinate delay in sending sealed parcels for ballistic examination. 3. Delay in interrogating the accused after arrest. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conflict between the testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence: The appellant was convicted of murder based on the testimony of three eye-witnesses. However, the Supreme Court found that "the testimony of eye-witnesses is in conflict with the medical evidence and cannot be safely accepted." The medical evidence indicated that the shot was fired from a very close range, about 9 inches to a yard or a yard and a half. In contrast, the eye-witnesses and the draftsman's evidence showed that the rifle was fired from a distance of about 25 feet. This discrepancy between the medical evidence and the eye-witness accounts raised significant doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case. 2. Inordinate delay in sending sealed parcels for ballistic examination: The Court noted an "inordinate delay in sending the sealed parcels of (a) the empty cartridge case recovered from the scene of occurrence, and (b) the rifle recovered from the house of the appellant, for the opinion of the ballistic expert, Dr. Goyle." The empty cartridge case was sent to the expert as late as the 27th of October, 1954, despite being recovered on the 10th of September, 1954. This delay raised suspicion that the cartridge case sent to the expert might not be the one recovered from the crime scene but one fired at the police station. The Court found this delay suspicious and indicative of potential tampering with evidence. 3. Delay in interrogating the accused after arrest: The Court also highlighted that "the accused, though actually arrested on the 14th September, 1954, and brought to the police station on the 21st September, 1954, was not interrogated by the Sub-Inspector till the 26th September, 1954." This delay in interrogation further cast doubt on the bona fides of the investigation. The Court found it suspicious and indicative of possible manipulation or fabrication of evidence during the period of delay. Judgment: The Supreme Court concluded that "the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The sentence of death is set aside and he will be set at liberty." The Court found that the combination of conflicting medical and eye-witness evidence, suspicious delays in sending crucial evidence for examination, and the delay in interrogating the accused rendered the prosecution's case unreliable and not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Separate Judgment: A separate judgment delivered by Jagannadhadas, J., and Sinha, J., concurred with the acquittal but based their agreement primarily on grounds 2 and 3. They expressed dissent regarding the first ground, stating that the evidence of the draftsman showing the distance between the accused and the victim was inadmissible under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They emphasized that the evidence of the draftsman could only be used for contradicting and discrediting the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses and not for supplementing it. They concluded that the High Court's finding that "it is not proved that Santa Singh fired at Labh Singh from a distance of 25 feet" should stand, and no permissible contradiction of the eye-witnesses' evidence had been brought out by the draftsman's evidence. In summary, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the unreliability of the prosecution's evidence due to conflicts between medical and eye-witness testimony, suspicious delays in the investigation process, and potential tampering with evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
|
