The conclusion was drawn that the prosecution has not sufficiently proven even the accusation of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, granting the benefit of the doubt to the appellant is warranted by the justice of the case, leading to the decision to acquit him. This ruling has been ordered accordingly.
The case involves a dispute between the Appellant and the victim over wage demands. Allegedly, the Appellant used a rubber stick from a tea stall to attack the victim, resulting in the victim’s death. The Sessions judge initially convicted the Appellant for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. However, the High Court reduced the charge to section 304-Part II of the IPC, sentencing the Appellant to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court acknowledged the Appellant’s role in causing the fatal head injury but ruled out an intention to kill.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the circumstances suggest the victim, likely under the influence of alcohol, fell from a tree, sustaining a head injury that led to his demise.
The crucial witnesses, Ponnaian and Velukutti, who were reportedly present during the incident at the tea stall were not examined by the prosecution. Their absence from the testimony was left unexplained by the prosecution, despite their statements being recorded during the investigation. The prosecution’s failure to provide a reason for not calling upon these witnesses led the Apex Court to conclude that section 114, illustration of the Evidence Act applies, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.
Therefore in this case, the appeal was successful, resulting in the overturning of the challenged judgment and order dated 12th November 2009. Consequently, the appellant was to be released unless there were outstanding charges against him in another case. Furthermore, he was discharged from his bail bonds.
Written by Samruddhi Kulkarni from ILS Law College pune (BA.LL.B) semester 1 intern under legal vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments