Failure To Examine Independent Eyewitnesses, Overturns Conviction in  murder case - SC

On 12 April 2023, Supreme Court, in a recent judgement Sita Ram Vs State of U.P., found that there was serious doubt as to whether the prosecution had adequately proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, who were allegedly injured witnesses, did not inspire confidence, and that the prosecution had failed to examine several independent eyewitnesses, including one who had attended court but was not examined.

On August 17, 1984, the appellant and several other accused persons attacked three individuals, including PW-1 and PW-2, with bricks, bamboo sticks, and a spade, resulting in the death of Karam Hussain. The attack was allegedly motivated by prior enmity and ongoing legal disputes. PW-1 and PW-2 were eyewitnesses to the incident, and their testimony was deemed credible by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. The appellant and one other accused were convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, while the remaining accused were convicted of causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC. The appellant's co-accused died during the appeal process.

The appellant's counsel argued that the eyewitnesses' testimony was insufficient to convict the appellant, as they did not see who specifically attacked the deceased, and three other eyewitnesses were not examined.

In response, the State's counsel argued that the medical evidence supported the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, who claimed that the appellant had attacked the deceased, and that the Sessions Court and High Court had correctly relied on their testimony. The State's counsel requested that the appellant's conviction not be overturned.

The Supreme Court reviewed the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and found that their statements in cross-examination cast serious doubt on whether they had witnessed a specific accused assaulting the deceased. Additionally, the court noted that several independent eyewitnesses, including Munif, Murtaza, and Iltaf, were present at the scene of the crime, but were not examined by the prosecution. The court found that the prosecution had failed to adequately establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore overturned the conviction.

The Supreme Court found that there was serious doubt as to whether the prosecution had adequately proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, who were allegedly injured witnesses, did not inspire confidence, and that the prosecution had failed to examine several independent eyewitnesses, including one who had attended court but was not examined. Based on these factors, the court acquitted the appellant. The appeal was allowed.

Sita Ram Vs State of U.P

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/12-Apr-2023-SITA-RAM-Vs-State-Non.pdf"]