https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462016 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462016 Criminal conspiracy involving the appellants (A2 and A4) to abduct and murder the deceased - applicability and scope of legal principles - presumption of innocence - Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - innocent-till- proven-guilty Rule for other criminal offences - Challenged the convictions, granted by the Sessions Court - business rivalry with the deceased - HELD THAT:- Having considered the matter in extenso, including examining the facts and applicable law, we are of the clear view that sufficient material is available on record, which has come out during the trial giving rise to reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the Appellants in the crime. The Appellants have been able to poke holes in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW7. Our conclusion is only fortified as A1 and A7 have been acquitted and thus, the conspiracy angle dehors the said main conspirators, who are the masterminds as per the prosecution, cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, no alternative theory qua conspiracy has been even suggested, much less proved, by the prosecution. Undisputedly, the four persons in the car on the fateful date were (1) the deceased; (2) PW1; (3) assailant/shooter, who is absconding, and (4) A3. In the background of the admitted position that the Appellants were not present at the spot where the crime was committed i.e., in the car nor any direct/specific role in commission of the offence being attributed to them, their convictions cannot be upheld. On a deeper and fundamental level, when this Court is confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion Although in the context of bail jurisprudence, for a working idea as to what 'judicial discretion' entails, peruse the views of a learned Single Judge (sitting as Judge-in-Chambers) of this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT], lean in favour of the Defence. We have borne in mind the cardinal principle that life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with, and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, for certain offences, the law seeks to place a reverse onus on the Accused to prove his/her innocence, but that does not impact adversely the innocent-till- proven-guilty Rule for other criminal offences. We see no quarrel with the afore-noted statement as the same applies on all fours to our criminal justice system. The presumption of innocence is also a human right, per the pronouncement in Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2004 (4) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT] In Ranjeetsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtr [2005 (4) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] a 3-Judge Bench of this Court, at Paragraph 35, had opined that '... Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds therefor. ...' Accordingly, for reasons aforesaid, these appeals stand allowed. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. If any fine(s) pursuant to the orders of the Sessions Court or High Court were deposited by/realised from either Appellant, they shall be entitled to refund of the same. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530