High Court: Complex Analysis of Eyewitness Accounts and Medical Evidence Leads to Conviction  

In a significant ruling, the High Court delivered a comprehensive judgment, evaluating intricate eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to arrive at a conviction. The case involved a tragic incident that occurred on November 29, 2013, resulting in the loss of life. The two-judge bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Waghwase and Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, meticulously examined the details to ensure justice was served.

The judgment emphasized the importance of scrutinizing ocular evidence, citing a recent Supreme Court case. The Court quoted, “The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task… There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula… the approach must be whether the evidence… appears to have a ring of truth.” The judges highlighted that even minor discrepancies in witness accounts should not necessarily lead to evidence rejection.

The Court’s meticulous analysis revealed the roles of each accused during the occurrence. The bench concluded that the appellant, accused no.3, was involved in a murderous assault, while accused no.1 was implicated for causing injuries to the deceased’s ankle. Notably, the Court acquitted accused no.2 due to a lack of evidence. The verdict focused on individual actions rather than invoking Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In addressing objections related to the FIR and the recovery of weapons, the Court emphasized the trauma experienced by the elderly witness who initially failed to name the accused in the FIR. The judgment underscored that an incomplete FIR does not necessarily discredit the overall evidence. Scrutinizing the recovery process, the Court expressed doubts about the recovery of a sword, yet confirmed the recovery of a knife through corroborating Investigating Officer testimony.

The verdict also acknowledged the importance of scientific evidence. The analysis of blood types on weapons and clothing provided additional corroboration. The Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, convicting accused no.3 for murder, while others were convicted under Section 323 of the IPC.

This landmark judgment showcases the critical role of comprehensive analysis, meticulous evaluation of evidence, and adherence to principles laid down by higher courts. The ruling stands as a testament to the Indian legal system’s commitment to delivering justice based on rigorous examination and reasoned judgment.

D.D-10.08.2023

Rama Abaji Jadhav, State of Maharashtra        

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

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Rani_Chagan_Rushi_Jadhav_vs_The_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_10_August_2023_BomHC.pdf"]