In a significant legal development, a court has overturned a conviction due to insufficient evidence presented by the prosecution. The decision underscores the importance of thorough legal analysis in evaluating cases. Flaws in the evidence put forward by the prosecution were meticulously examined, leading to the overturning of the conviction. This outcome exemplifies the critical role of legal scrutiny in ensuring justice is served accurately and fairly.
Facts
- The co-accused did not challenge the conviction and served out his sentence.
- The evidence of PW15 cannot be relied upon as against the other prosecution witnesses themselves, which stood uncontroverted.
- The trial court rendered a conviction against the appellant and the co-accused Suresh.
- The recovery was not proved in the manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant.
- The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence.
- The conviction rendered by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh, as confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, stands set aside and the appellant is set at liberty.
- PW1 and PW3 were present at the scene of occurrence and heard the gunshot.
- PW1 saw a girl bleeding along with the deceased.
- The brother of the deceased, PW13, heard the gunshot and saw the deceased lying at the spot.
- PW10, the wife of the deceased, lodged the FIR and the Investigating Officer arrested the accused the next day.
- PW7, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, identified the accused but stated they were not present at the scene of occurrence.
Also Read: Compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution: Duty to Serve Grounds of Detention
Issue
- Eyewitness account of PW1 hearing the gunshot
- PW1’s observation of the deceased lying near the gate
Also Read: Dismissal of Application Seeking Bail Relief
Arguments
- The testimony of PW 8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh is crucial and cannot be easily disregarded by the prosecution.
- PW 8 saw PW 5 pressuring the deceased to blame the appellant and his parents.
- The Public Prosecutor did not seek permission to declare PW 8 as a hostile witness during the trial.
- The evidence of PW 8 is binding on the prosecution and cannot be ignored.
- The High Court failed to provide any valid reason for sidelining PW 8’s testimony.
Also Read: Unfair Trade Practice in Insurance Contract
Analysis
- Inconsistencies in the evidence provided by prosecution witnesses were highlighted.
- The credibility of certain witnesses, such as PW16, was questioned due to their background and reputation.
- The recovery of weapons from the appellant was a key point of contention, with conflicting testimonies between witnesses.
- The burden of proof was shifted onto the defense by both trial and high courts.
- The FSL report presented contradictions that were not adequately addressed by the authoring officer.
- The presence of crucial witnesses, such as a close relative of the deceased, who were not examined, raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
- The evidence put forward by the defense, including witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, played a significant role in raising doubts about the guilt of the accused.
- Courts have extensively considered the evidence implicating the appellant.
- Evidence of PW15 is not reliable compared to other uncontroverted prosecution witnesses.
- Recovery not proven in accordance with the law.
- Inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant.
- The conviction is overturned as the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Decision
- The appeal stands allowed.
- The conviction by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No 129 of 2001 is set aside.
- The appellant is set at liberty.
Case Title: VIRENDRA Vs. THE STATE OF M.P. (2022 INSC 678)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000466-000466 / 2018
