Last Updated: January 18, 2023, 20:29 IST
The SC famous that even when the delay in recording the FIR was ignored, the conviction was solely based mostly on the testimonies of two units of witnesses.
The SC additional famous {that a} fundamental precept of felony jurisprudence is that in circumstantial proof instances, the prosecution is obliged to show every circumstance, past affordable doubt, in addition to the hyperlinks between all circumstances
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the courtroom mustn’t convict an accused solely on the idea of the “last seen” circumstance, the place the time lag between the time the deceased was seen final with the accused and the time of homicide is slender, emphasising that the doctrine has restricted utility.
The SC additional famous {that a} fundamental precept of felony jurisprudence is that in circumstantial proof instances, the prosecution is obliged to show every circumstance, past affordable doubt, in addition to the hyperlinks between all circumstances. Such circumstances, taken cumulatively, ought to type a series so full that there is no such thing as a escape from the conclusion that inside all human likelihood, the crime was dedicated by the accused and none else. Further, the details so proved ought to unerringly level in direction of the guilt of the accused.
With this view, the Supreme Court put aside the conviction of the accused earlier than it, beneath Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and beneath Section 364, IPC.
The accused have been convicted for kidnapping and murdering a 7-year-old boy. The boy’s father had approached the Magistrate to register a primary info report (FIR) six weeks after the demise of the boy.
The SC famous that even when the delay in recording the FIR (which was 42 days) was ignored, the salient truth which stared at one’s face was that the conviction was solely based mostly on the testimonies of two units of witnesses.
The Court additional stated that the time hole between when the deceased was seen within the firm of the accused and the possible time of his demise — based mostly on the autopsy report, which was performed two days later, however was silent in regards to the possible time of demise, though stating that demise occurred roughly two days earlier than the autopsy — was not slender.
“Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even when it have been to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants shouldn’t be justified,” the bench held whereas setting apart the conviction and sentence of the accused and ordering their launch forthwith.
Read all of the Latest India News right here
