सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 25‑साल पुराने हत्या मामले में चार की सजा रद्द, सबूत में भारी खामियां

Supreme Court acquits four in 25-year-old murder case over evidence gaps

The Supreme Court acquitted four surviving appellants in a 25-year-old murder case. The bench said gaps in eyewitness and circumstantial evidence created reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the conviction and life sentence of four people in a 25-year-old murder case, saying the evidence on record had “substantial gaps” that created a reasonable doubt about their involvement in the crime.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale allowed the appeals against a May 2009 Orissa High Court judgment that had upheld the conviction of six people. The court noted that all six had approached it, but during the pendency of the appeals, two of them died and the proceedings against them stood abated.

In its judgment, the bench said that while the medical evidence clearly showed that the deceased had died a homicidal death, the key issue was whether the prosecution had proved the appellants’ role in the crime. “Though the medical evidence clearly established that the deceased died a homicidal death, the question before us is whether the prosecution was successful in establishing the appellants' authorship of the crime and we find that the prosecution failed to establish its case,” the bench said.

The court said the case rested mainly on the testimony of some alleged eyewitnesses, but found significant inconsistencies in their version. Referring to the witness testimonies, it noted that the incident had taken place on a pitch-dark night.

The bench also referred to two earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and noted the high court’s own categorical finding that it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to have seen the incident on such a dark night or identify the assailants merely on the basis of the sound of the assault. It said the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses could not be relied upon.

Once the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses was discarded, the prosecution case had to be treated as one based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the court said. It added that the settled legal position was that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be proved beyond doubt and all of them together must point to the guilt of the accused.

“Viewed cumulatively, the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of the appellants. The evidence on record leaves substantial gaps which create a reasonable doubt as to their involvement,” the bench said. It added that in criminal jurisprudence, where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.

Allowing the appeals, the court said the high court was not justified in affirming the conviction of the appellants. It set aside the high court judgment and also quashed the trial court order convicting them and sentencing them to life imprisonment.

An FIR had been lodged in May 2001 alleging that the accused had assaulted a man who later died of his injuries. A chargesheet was filed against 18 people. Proceedings against one of them were abated after his death, while the cases of three others were split up after they were declared absconders. The trial court later convicted six people, including on the charge of murder, and acquitted eight others by giving them the benefit of doubt.

With Friday’s ruling, the Supreme Court has cleared the four surviving appellants in the case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News