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>High Court overturns convictions citing witness credibility, lack of evidence</h1> <h3>State of U.P. and Ors. Versus Jaggo and Ors.</h3> The High Court acquitted the accused, overturning the Sessions Court's convictions and sentences. The decision was based on the witnesses' partisan ... - Issues Involved:1. Credibility of eyewitnesses.2. Partisan nature of witnesses.3. Absence of key witness (Ramesh).4. Medical evidence and its correlation with eyewitness testimonies.5. High Court's dual jurisdiction in appeal and death sentence confirmation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Credibility of Eyewitnesses:The Sessions Court accepted the testimonies of five eyewitnesses: Munna Lal, Sita Ram, Bhikari, Sarwan, and Tara Chand. The court scrutinized Munna Lal's evidence due to his relationship with the deceased, Lalu, and found it credible. Sita Ram's evidence was corroborated by Bhikari, despite the latter not being mentioned in the first information report. Sarwan's testimony was supported by other facts, and Tara Chand's evidence was not discredited by any significant reliance on Krishna Swarup Upadhyaya. The High Court, however, found all eyewitnesses to be partisan, noting their involvement in various criminal proceedings and enmity with the accused.2. Partisan Nature of Witnesses:The High Court highlighted the partisan nature of the witnesses. Munna Lal was involved in proceedings with Krishna Swarup Upadhyaya, who was acquitted in a case brought by Gopi, associated with the accused. Sarwan had filed applications against some of the accused, indicating inimical terms. Tara Chand stood surety for Gopal in an assault case, showing a connection with the opposing party. Sita Ram and Bhikari were sureties for Kali Charan in an assault case and had connections with the deceased's party. The High Court concluded that these witnesses bore ill-will and enmity against the accused, making their testimonies unreliable.3. Absence of Key Witness (Ramesh):Ramesh, who was with Lalu at the time of the incident and mentioned in the first information report, was not examined by the prosecution. The High Court stressed the importance of calling witnesses essential to 'unfolding the narrative,' referencing the case of Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad. The absence of Ramesh's testimony was seen as a significant omission that affected the prosecution's case.4. Medical Evidence and Its Correlation with Eyewitness Testimonies:The High Court found discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness testimonies. The medical evidence indicated that Lalu had incised wounds caused by heavy sharp-edged weapons and lacerated wounds from a blunt weapon like a lathi. However, no stab wounds were found, contradicting the eyewitness accounts of knife attacks. Additionally, the presence of abrasions suggested Lalu was dragged, contrary to the eyewitnesses' statements that he was only assaulted. The High Court concluded that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's narrative, indicating a false implication of several assailants.5. High Court's Dual Jurisdiction in Appeal and Death Sentence Confirmation:The High Court exercised dual jurisdiction under Sections 374, 375, and 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, dealing with both the appeal and the reference for death sentence confirmation. The High Court found sound reasons to acquit the accused, noting the partisan nature of the witnesses, the absence of key witness Ramesh, and inconsistencies between the medical evidence and eyewitness testimonies. The High Court's decision to acquit the accused was based on a thorough consideration of the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution's case was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.Conclusion:The High Court acquitted the accused, setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the Sessions Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the accused were set at liberty. The judgment emphasized the importance of credible and unbiased evidence, the necessity of presenting all essential witnesses, and the correlation between medical evidence and eyewitness accounts in establishing the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
