9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Sections 302/149 and Section 148 of the Penal Code, credibility of eyewitnesses, delay in sending the first information report, absence of blood on weapons recovered. Analysis: 1. The judgment involved the conviction of six appellants under Sections 302/149 and Section 148 of the Penal Code, with each sentenced to imprisonment for life and fines. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked the deceased, a former Sarpanch, resulting in his death. The High Court confirmed the convictions of the appellants but acquitted three other accused individuals. 2. The prosecution's case detailed a longstanding grudge between the accused group, led by appellant No. 1, and the deceased. The incident occurred when the deceased was attacked while returning to the village, leading to his death. Eyewitnesses testified to the attack, supported by medical evidence and police findings. The trial court and High Court found their testimonies credible. 3. The defense contended that the accused were falsely implicated, denying any involvement in the incident. During the trial, 15 witnesses were examined, including eyewitnesses, a doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, and the investigating officer. The defense's claim of innocence was not substantiated. 4. The defense raised concerns about the delay in sending the first information report to the Magistrate, arguing it should lead to acquittal. However, the court reasoned that the report was dispatched promptly considering the circumstances, and any delay did not impact the credibility of the prosecution's case. The judgment cited precedents regarding the effect of delays in sending reports to the Magistrate. 5. Another issue raised was the absence of blood on the weapons recovered by the Investigating Officer. The trial court noted that the weapons were found in a water pipe, explaining the lack of blood. The court found no fault in this reasoning and did not consider it detrimental to the prosecution's case. 6. The defense also challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses, labeling them as partisan witnesses. However, both trial and High Court found their testimonies consistent, corroborated by evidence, and credible. The absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the prosecution's case. 7. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants, concluding that the High Court did not err in its decision. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings and decisions.
|
