Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madras High Court emphasized that it is crucial for the true facts of the case to be brought to light in the pursuit of justice. Denying both the prosecution and the defense the opportunity to present their cases would violate fundamental legal principles
“In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind might take the place of proof and therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that such thing should not take place.”
“The prime object of FIR, from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged activity to enable them to take suitable steps to trace and book the guilty. FIR is an important document, though not a substantial piece of evidence, and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of its maker viz., the informant.”
Bombay High Court considered the role pertaining to the applicant and him being a 22-years-old at the relevant time, the Court found him entitled to be enlarged on bail.
The High Court referred to Section 437 of CrPC for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence in three specific circumstances.
Supreme Court directed the petitioner to cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial and not to interact with any of the witnesses in the instant case.
“There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court noted ASI’s submission regarding absence of complaint against the petitioner regarding threatening the witnesses, as against the contentions.
Supreme Court did not deem it safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence and acquitted the appellant.
Supreme Court concurred with the Punjab and Haryana High Court that incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of evidence was not complete to interfere with a degree of certainty of accused having committed the crime.
The Court said that the case in hand was a quintessential case where to solve a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected.
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
The Supreme Court refused to grant the benefit of General Exception of unsoundness of mind under IPC in favour of the appellant, since he failed to discharge his burden of proof.
It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.