There were 29 accused named in the charge sheet, out of which accused nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 20 were convicted by the Sessions Court and the remaining 21 were acquitted.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
Inviting our attention to the evidence of PW-3 Krishna and, in particular, her cross- examination, she submitted that her testimony cannot be held to be reliable, particularly when the identification of the accused made by the witness in the Court is highly doubtful. We find that the prosecution case depends only on the testimony of PW-3 Krishna and PW-4 Kanwarbai. She stated that she identified persons, namely, Raghunath (accused no.1); Shyama (accused no.8); Bhavana (Bhawani) – accused no.20; Modu and Chaturbhuj (accused no.15).
It is noted in the deposition that PW-3 identified accused Radhey Shyam (accused no.9) as a son of Kana by calling him Shyama.
She stated that she had told the police while recording her statement that 30-35 persons belonging to the Azad party were assaulting her father.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/moratorium-application-in-insolvency-case/
The note made by the learned Sessions Judge reads thus : “Note: – The witness by going close the accused, taking round again and again, by pushing aside in front and by going close the rear person tried to have a look, identified in this manner and sometime by standing for a moment close to the accused went ahead and on return could identify someone, also stated that vision is not clear because there is some darkness.
The witness stated that though the light is sufficient and faces are also visible but it is not assessed as to who are these persons.”
(emphasis added)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
Thereafter PW-4 was asked who were the accused out of the persons present. In any case, it is very unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of such testimony, especially when the only other eye witness (PW-4) believed by the Trial Court could not identify a single accused in the Court. …………………J.
Case Title: RADHEY SHYAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2023 INSC 360)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002203-002203 / 2010
