Harilal vs. State of India: Acquittal of Accused No.3

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the judgement in the case of Harilal vs. State of India, leading to the acquittal of Accused No.3. This decision comes after serious doubts were raised concerning the witness account provided by Ram Sumer, the brother of the deceased Harilal. The court’s ruling, which marks the end of a sixteen-year incarceration for the accused, emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in legal proceedings.

Facts

On 20 June, 2005, deceased Harilal was talking to Mohan Lal when the accused arrived with weapons.
Accused nos.1 and 2 fired pistols at Harilal, who then ran into Mevalal’s house.
The appellant, accused no.3, was carrying a knife during the incident.
Ram Sumer, another brother of the deceased, witnessed the events and provided testimony against the appellant.
Jaggilal, who initially filed the complaint, passed away before the trial.
The appellant’s conviction is based on the evidence given by PW1 Ram Sumer regarding the knife attack.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.
Jaggilal, the brother of the deceased Harilal, was the complainant in the case.

Also Read: Ahmad Palace Bail Case: Supreme Court Ruling

Analysis

Serious doubt is created regarding PW1’s witness account of the incident.
No other eyewitnesses were examined despite the incident happening in front of many people.
Surprising omission of charging the accused under Section 34 of the IPC.
PW1’s account in cross-examination casts further uncertainty on his claim of witnessing the assault.
The prosecution case is based on firearm injuries causing the death of the deceased.
Allegation against the appellant involves carrying a knife and assaulting the deceased after the shooting by other accused.
Contradictions in PW1’s statements about the timing and details of the incident raise doubts about his testimony.
The court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
The courts have convicted the appellant solely based on the evidence of PW1, Ram Sumer.
This situation is deemed shocking given that the appellant has already served sixteen years of incarceration.

Also Read: Property Tax Dispute: Avenue Supermarts Limited vs. Municipal Corporation