High Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case, Citing Doubts in Prosecution’s Case
In a recent judgement, the High Court delivered a verdict acquitting the accused in a murder case, citing doubts and discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. High Court highlighted various shortcomings in the evidence presented by the prosecution, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the accused.
The case revolved around the alleged murder of a gas godown keeper, wherein the prosecution relied heavily on eyewitness testimony to establish the guilt of the accused. However, the Court found multiple inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses, casting doubt on their reliability.
One crucial aspect that raised suspicion was the failure to establish the presence of the accused at the crime scene. The Court noted that the arrest of the accused was not supported by an arrest memo, and their signatures were missing on the recovery memos and disclosure statements. Moreover, no medical examination was conducted to verify the injuries claimed by the accused upon arrest, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
The motive alleged by the prosecution also faced criticism. The defense argued that there was no evidence of the gas godown keeper denying gas cylinders to the accused, as claimed. Additionally, subsequent disclosure statements implicated additional individuals, raising doubts about the veracity of the alleged motive.
The Court further highlighted discrepancies in the timing and sequence of events presented by the eyewitnesses. It observed that the alleged eyewitnesses contradicted each other, and one of them was dropped from the case due to allegations of collusion with the accused. The Court stressed the need for caution in assessing eyewitness testimony and noted the lack of corroboration with other documentary evidence.
Regarding circumstantial evidence, the Court pointed out that the recovery memos and sketches did not bear the accused’s signatures. Furthermore, no effort was made to lift fingerprints from the weapon recovered at the crime scene. The Court expressed doubts about the authenticity of forensic samples and their connection to the accused, undermining the circumstantial evidence against them.
In light of these deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, the Court concluded that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. Court set aside the order of conviction and ordered the release of the appellants. Acquittal.
D/d. 12.04.2023.
Suresh VS State of Haryana and others
