TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court acquits appellant of murder charges due to discrepancies in evidence and benefit of doubt</h1> <h3>Shankarlal Versus State of Rajasthan</h3> The appellant was initially convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, but the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ... - Issues Involved:Conviction under section 302 IPC, credibility of the eyewitness, delay in lodging the complaint, benefit of doubt.Analysis:The appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine, which was confirmed by the High Court. The prosecution's case involved the appellant and the deceased working as laborers, with the appellant later being accused of attacking the deceased with an axe. The only eyewitness, PW-6, claimed to have seen the incident while on his way to meet someone else. However, discrepancies in his testimony and behavior raised doubts about his credibility. The defense argued that the witness was a chance witness and his presence at the crime scene was questionable. The defense also highlighted the significant delay in lodging the complaint, which cast suspicion on the prosecution's case.The defense contended that the witness's account was unreliable due to contradictions and the unlikelihood of his presence at the crime scene. The witness's failure to inform others about the incident until much later further weakened the prosecution's case. The delay in lodging the complaint, despite the availability of transportation, raised doubts about the authenticity of the allegations. The defense also challenged the motive presented by the prosecution as insufficient to justify the alleged crime.The respondent State argued in favor of the witness's credibility, stating that his actions were reasonable given his commitment to meet someone for a transaction. The respondent also justified the delay in lodging the complaint, attributing it to the circumstances surrounding the incident and the time it took to gather necessary information. However, the Supreme Court found that the witness's testimony was unreliable and his behavior suspicious, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. As a result, the appellant's conviction was overturned, and he was acquitted of all charges.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
