"Eyewitness Account Is Contradictory & Must Be Backed With Supporting Material" - Karnataka HC While Setting Aside Life Sentence
A Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K has acquitted three persons charged with murder.
In that context, the Court observed that "though the prosecution proved the homicidal death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt, but by perusal of the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other circumstantial evidence examined by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to connect the accused for the homicidal death of deceased."
Senior Counsel Murthy D Nail and Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam M appeared for the appellant. Advocate Vijaykumar Majage appeared for the prosecution.
In this case, three youths were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the charges of murder. The prosecution's case was mainly reliant on the testimony of two neighbours, who were allegedly eyewitnesses to the murder.
The defence contended that the Trial Courts had fully relied on those testimonies without properly scrutinising and appreciating their evidence and that the same was highly inconsistent. It was argued that neither eyewitnesses had made any attempt to stop the murder, or even inform the police. Further, they had even failed to identify the weapons that were said to be have used.
The Court noted that there were many omissions and contradictions in their evidence and the entire fabric of the prosecution case appeared to be ridden with the gaping holes. It was further said that "It is true that due to passage of time, witness do deviate from their Police Statements as their memory fades to some extent and reasonable allowance can be made for such discrepancies. But when such discrepancies makes the foundation of the prosecution case shaky, the Court has to take strict note thereof. On thorough reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the discrepancies are located the witnesses have discredited themselves".
In similar context, it was observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused persons and the other to their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused persons should be adopted.
Subsequently, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge had ignored number of reasonable doubts which legitimately arose on the evidence lead by the prosecution and its conduct in suppressing the material witness which clearly indicate that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Finally, it was said that "the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt".
Cause Title: Mr KR Pushpesh @ Puppi & Ors. vs State of Karnataka
Click here to read/download the Judgment
