Testimonies Of Injured Witnesses & Investigation Officer Not Inspiring Confidence: SC Acquits Two Men Accused In Two Decades Old Murder Case
The Supreme Court acquitted two men accused in a two decade old murder case citing various lapses affecting the sanctity of the prosecution’s case such as non-inspiring testimonies of injured witnesses and investigation officer.
The Court held that the trial court had failed the standard of scrutiny applied to a criminal proceeding for convicting an accused as there were several contradictory statements made during the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses. The judgment of the Trial Court primarily relied on the prosecution’s witnesses and the testimony of the Investigating Officer “by virtue of having been in the driver’s seat of the case.”
“There were about 50 persons at the scene of the crime, then, how has the non-examination of independent witness been countenanced by the prosecution and “approved” by the Courts below, is something that escapes us, or rather confounds us,” the Court exclaimed.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “The investigation officer of a case is the charioteer tasked with using the resources and personnel at his disposal to ensure law and order as also that a person who has committed a crime is brought to the book. In other words, the role of an investigating officer is that of the backbone of the entire criminal proceeding in respect of the particular offence(s) he is charged with investigating.”
Advocate S. Arun Prakash represented the appellant, while AOR Joseph Aristotle S. appeared for the respondent.
This Court stated that it was necessary to strike a balance between the testimony of the injured witness and that of an interested witness. If witnesses examined are found to be ‘interested’ then, the examination of independent witnesses would assume importance. Similarly, the evidence of an injured witness would be considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter.
The Court held, “Various lapses such as these cumulatively affect the overall sanctity of the prosecution case, making it fall short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. It is in such circumstances, on analysis of the record, that we are unable to sustain the conviction handed down by the Courts below to A-1 and A-2.”
The injured witnesses and the Investigation Officer in their testimony together did not inspire confidence as per the Court and “the prosecution case stands shaken beyond a point to which no conviction resting thereupon can be said to be just in the eyes of law,”
Consequently, the Court gave the following reasons for setting aside the conviction: “(a) examined private persons were interested witnesses, with inconsistencies amongst them; (b) no independent witnesses were examined; (c) there was a delay in filing the FIR; (d) there were interpolations on record; (e) there were numerous lapses in the investigation; and (f) the medical and scientific evidence on record does not support the prosecution's version of events.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Periyasamy v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 212)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR B. Balaji and Vipin Kumar Jai; Advocates S. Arun Prakash, Gurinder Jai, Vipul Jai and Sanjna Dua
Respondent: AOR Joseph Aristotle S.; Advocate Shubhi Bhardwaj
