Conviction Based On Flimsy & Wavering Evidence Is Not At All Justified: SC Acquits Murder Accused
|The Supreme Court set aside the murder conviction of an accused saying that his conviction based on flimsy and wavering evidence is not at all justified.
The accused filed an appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which his appeal challenging the order of sentence was rejected.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “Indisputably, Sanju received a single gunshot injury which proved fatal. Considering the significant disparities and discrepancies in the evidence of Ram Prakash(PW-1) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) regarding the identity of the assailant who actually fired at Sanju(deceased), we feel that the conviction of accused appellant Jagvir Singh on the basis of such flimsy and wavering evidence is not at all justified. The trial Court as well as the High Court committed glaring error while holding that Ram Prakash(PW-1), Sultan Singh(PW-2) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) were eyewitnesses to the incident and that they saw the accused appellant along with accused Omkar firing at Sanju(deceased). These findings are unsustainable on the face of the record in view of the analyses and discussion of evidence made above.”
Advocate Kaushal Yadav appeared for the appellant/accused while Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad appeared for the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
The Trial Court convicted the accused appellant and another for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo an imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The other accused served out the sentence awarded to him and was released on remission. The appellant challenged the same before the High Court but it dismissed his appeal. Hence, he approached the Apex Court. In this case, an FIR was registered by the informant who alleged that his sister, brother-in-law, and nephew (deceased) were residing nearby his house in village.
In August 2002, in the evening, the co-accused came and asked deceased to remove his Naands (Hauda) from the land of the co-accused to which the deceased objected. At this, the co-accused armed with a rifle along with the appellant accused armed with country made pistol climbed on the roof of the house and exhorted the two accused to surround the deceased. The accused persons fired shots at the deceased who died in the courtyard. All four accused ran away from the spot after this.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “The so-called eye witnesses, Ram Prakash(PW-1) and Ram Naresh(PW-5) were the closest relatives of the victim. They allegedly saw the fatal assault on the victim and yet did not take any step to save him from the assault. If these witnesses PW-1 and PW-5 had actually seen the assault, their reaction and conduct does not match up with the reaction expected from them. Their conduct is highly unnatural, and we find it difficult to accept their presence at the crime scene.”
The Court noted that the so-called eye witnesses who were unquestionably standing or moving at the ground level could not have seen the gunshots being fired at the deceased from the roof of Omkar’s (co-accused) house.
“Sultan Singh(PW-2) admitted that he was working in his field when the incident took place and thus, there was no possibility that, he could have seen the incident with his own eyes. But despite that, the prosecution tried to project him as an eyewitness of the incident which again creates a grave doubt on the truthfulness and bona fides of the prosecution story”, it added.
The Court said that neither of the so-called eye witnesses had actually seen the gunshots being fired at the deceased and hence, the entire sequence of events as narrated by prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the accused, and quashed the impugned judgment.
Cause Title- Jagvir Singh v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 384)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Kaushal Yadav, AOR Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Advocates Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Ajay Kumar, Arjun Raghuvanshi, Arpit Kumar, and Ritul Tandon.
Respondent: AAG Garima Prasad, AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocates Parth Yadav, Mani Munjal, and Marbiang Khongwir.