The division judge bench of Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha of the supreme court of India in the case of Munuwa @ Satish Etc V The state of Uttar Pradesh held that the accused is entitled to give the benefit of the doubt as the prosecution has not proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased was sitting with his family physician and private practitioner in the verandah. He asked his security guard to bring him an empty bottle of medicines from his residence. When the security guard was returning with the bottle, he witnessed that the three accused had entered the verandah from the south, fired gunshots at them, and fled towards the north. Thereafter, they took the help of a compounder at his dispensary, to bring the deceased who had become unconscious, to the dispensary on a cot for administering first aid. After that, the deceased was put on a bullock cart and taken to the police station. The deceased was taken to the hospital and after that, the statement was recorded in which the deceased recounted events leading to the attacks on him. Further, the prosecution filed the charge sheet against the accused, and the Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 307, each read with Section 34, of the IPC.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused contended that the delay in filing the FIR indicates grave doubts about the occurrence of the incident. Further, there is a doubt as to the place of occurrence, and contradictions surface in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, and the conduct of witnesses is very suspicious and unnatural.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Uttar Pradesh that the decision of the trial court and the high court is totally based on reliable and credible evidence, particularly from the eyewitnesses who had no interest in securing the conviction and arrest of the accused. At last, it was submitted that the Trial Court considered all evidence and provided solid and valid grounds for its conclusions; thus, the High Court was correct in affirming the Trial Court's verdict.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court stated that they are not impressed by the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state as the FIR itself was written horizontally, thereby giving an impression that FIR was written after the signature which was obtained at a prior point of time. Further, the evidence of PW-1 casts doubts about his presence at the alleged place of occurrence of the crime. It is unnatural that not even a single drop of blood could be traced or recovered from the chair or the floor where the Deceased and PW-6 were sitting, casting serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution’s story regarding the place of the incident. It is common knowledge that a place where a severe bodily injury occurs naturally leaves a trail of the incident. It is also common for the prosecution to collect proof of blood-stained earth, clothes, or other materials, from where the incident would have occurred.
Further, there is an inconsistency in the two dying declarations made as to the motive of the crime, the place of the incident, and the presence of other persons at such a place. Further, in the case of Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka, this Court had similarly refrained from accepting any of the multiple dying declarations in light of their manifest inconsistencies.
The hon’ble court held that the prosecution failed to recover blood-stained materials from the place of occurrence, empty cartridges, pellets, or any other weapon used for the commission of the crime, coupled with the contradictions and unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-6, and the inconsistencies in the two dying declarations, we believe that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
CASE NAME- Munuwa @ Satish Etc V The state of Uttar Pradesh
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2224-2225 OF 2010
DATED- 26.08.22
CORUM- Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Read Judgment;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments