#eyewitness Archives - Prime Legal

Case title: Ram Singh Vs State of U.P

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 206 Of 2024

Decided on: 21.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Hon’ble Justices stated that, “ When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non- examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case but if the evidence tendered including that of eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case.”

BRIEF FACTS:

In the present case, appellant Ram Singh fired a shot with a country-made pistol, killing the informant’s mother. In the sessions trial, appellant Ram Singh was convicted under Sections 301 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He also received a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 301/302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, both sentences being served simultaneously.

As a result, the appellant’s appeal before the High Court of Judicature in Allahabad was dismissed. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The current appeal is against the high court’s order.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

Following a careful examination of the evidence, the court determined that the evidence presented by the eyewitnesses contains significant gaps. As a result, their evidence lacks credibility. Apart from that, no material witnesses have been questioned. Overall, the evidence presented on behalf of the prosecution cannot be considered complete proof, to the point where the failure to recover the weapon of offence, obtain a ballistic opinion, or examine a ballistic expert would be irrelevant.

The court on evidence for conviction ruled that the appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt because, according to us, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Any lingering doubt about an accused’s involvement in the crime for which he is accused must be considered by the court, and in such cases, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true when the trial court acquits the co-accused based on the same evidence.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judgement

Title: K P Pushpesh & Others And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2016

Date of Order 21-06-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE K SOMASHEKHAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has acquitted three youths convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for charges of murder, holding that there were material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution failed to corroborate their evidence with any other material.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves the prosecution’s claim that, the deceased Nousheer was murdered by accused No. 1 to 3 due to ill-will between them and with a common intention. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1 and 2 restrained Nousheer near the house of CW.6-Raman and assaulted him with a sickle, causing grievous injuries, resulting in his death. Accused No. 3 was alleged to have facilitated the murder by providing information about the movements of the deceased to accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The prosecution’s main evidence relied on two eyewitnesses, PW.22 and PW.24, who were neighbors and claimed to have seen the incident. However, the defense counsel contended that the trial court solely relied on the inconsistent testimony of these eyewitnesses, PW.22 and PW.24, without scrutinizing their evidence. The defense pointed out that the eyewitnesses did not attempt to prevent the accused from committing the crime, nor did they raise any alarm or inform the police about the incident. Additionally, they failed to identify the weapons allegedly used in the murder.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Court referred to the evidence of the eyewitnesses and said “On careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, we are of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Senior counsels for the appellants about the evidence deposed by these witnesses in respect of the incident witness by them, cannot be relied to the fullest extent to prove the guilt of the accused.” it further set aside life sentence in murder case; says eyewitness account contradictory, should be backed with supporting material.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Click here to see the judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

If there are inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, failure to recover the weapon of crime would be fatal to the prosecution’s case: Supreme Court

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence In Murder Case; Says Eyewitness facts Contradictory, Should Be Backed With Supporting Material