Although, mere defects in the investigative process by itself cannot constitute ground for acquittal, it is the legal obligation of the Court to examine carefully in each case the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses committed by the Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidence brought on record is at all reliable and whether such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth.
Murder acquittal
Multiple dying declarations-Apex court notices that the present is a case where the second dying declaration has been rejected completely by the High Court. In these circumstances, the cumulative weight of evidence relied upon by the High Court needs to be examined to ascertain whether the appellant is guilty of the offence he stands convicted for, i.e., Section 498A IPC. Ex. P-26, the second dying declaration is the only piece of evidence which names the appellant as one of the perpetrators of cruelty on the deceased along with the other accused. Both the courts below have noticed that in Ex. P-11, the first dying declaration, the appellant has not been named; rather he along with his father took the deceased in a critically injured state to the hospital. Undoubtedly, the focus of the first dying declaration is only upon the incident involving pouring of kerosene and setting the deceased on fire. The second dying declaration, Ex. P-26 alone elaborates acts of cruelty. That is the only piece of incriminating evidence against the accused. As far as the recovery of articles and the smell of kerosene in the report considered by the court are concerned, they are circumstances relating to the incident of setting the deceased on fire. They do not further the prosecution’s case under Section 498A as against the appellant.
It is more than evident that chain of evidence has many missing and weak links. None of essential ingredients to record conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence and that of poisoning case are made out. Prosecution has thus failed to bring home the guilt.
Appellants would be entitled for acquittal under section 302 IPC but would be liable to be convicted under section 304 PartII IPC. Rest of the conviction upheld by the High Court and the sentence for the charges under sections 341, 323, 324 and 427 read with section 34 IPC is maintained.
Whether respondent -accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC when the deceased died due to septicemia after a period of thirty days
It happens at times that the real culprit lodges the first information against known or unknown persons, to misdirect the investigation of an offence
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Mallappa Vs State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 1993 of 2010 Bench: N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose JJ. DATE: 07-05-2021 ACTS: Section 302/ 34 IPC JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. 1. The appellant (Mallappa) was charged with having committed fratricide, murder of his brother Earappa, little beyond the midnight hours of 19th-20th April 1999. His […]
Whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused in a case charged under Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code can create an opportunity for the accused to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service-NO- Any Govt circular favouring acquitted accused for job has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment.
the Supreme Court has observed that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence. It can be used to contradict or corroborate a witness who has made the statement.
Tulsiram Kanu Versus The State-the Sessions Judge has examined in detail the Evidence in respect of the ornaments and has given reasons for his conclusion that the ornaments were not proved to be the ornaments of the deceased. The reasoning of the High Court that the accused had not made any attempt to show that the ornaments belonged to him is clearly fallacious. The failure or ommission of the appellant to prove that fact does not in any way help the prosecution in proving the guilt of the appellant.
You must be logged in to post a comment.