In a case of all-round failure on part of the prosecution, the Delhi High Court has acquitted three accused in a murder case in view of the “glaring defects, contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses, doubtful recoveries and no evidence on the circumstance of the last seen”.
Setting aside the trial court judgment convicting the three accused, Alok Kumar, Santosh Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Mishra, in the case, a Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice S. P. Garg and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said: “…….we find glaring defects; contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; doubtful recoveries at the instance of the appellants and ‘no evidence' on the circumstance of last seen.”
The Sarai Rohilla police in North Delhi had charge-sheeted Alok Kumar and Santosh Kumar under Sections 320 (murder) and 397 (robbery) and Sanjay Kumar Mishra under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The trial court had sentenced Alok Kumar and Santosh Kumar to life imprisonment for murdering their employer, plastic trader Ganesh Parshad Singh, in 1998. The court had sentenced the third accused under the two Sections it charge-sheeted.
The police miserably failed to prove the recovery of weapon of offence, the alleged robbed gold chain and ring of the victim, the pellets recovered from the spot, the blood group of the victim and the last seen evidence as material prosecution witnesses failed to support the case. The two blood samples of the victim were found to have two different blood groups.
“Having noticed the principles governing the case based on the circumstantial evidence, we are of the view that the circumstances on which the trial Court based its conviction were not sufficiently proved to establish guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt,” the Bench said.
“For the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution was unable to discharge the burden imposed upon it, i.e. to establish conclusively each circumstance, alleged against the appellants and also to prove beyond reasonable doubt that every link to each circumstance had been established in turn beyond reasonable doubt, so as to point only to the guilt of the appellants and rule out any hypothesis pointing to their innocence. The benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants,” the Bench ruled.
Court finds glaring contradictions, discrepancies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses Trial court had sentenced two for life for murdering their employer in 1998
Court finds glaring contradictions, discrepancies in testimonies of prosecution witnesses
Trial court had sentenced two for life for murdering their employer in 1998