As a result of material contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution’s failure to bolster their testimony with any additional evidence, the Karnataka High Court has acquitted three youths who had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
KR Pushpesh, PV Vinaya, and KR Radish were found not guilty of the murder of Nousheer by a division bench of Justices K Somashekhar and Rajesh Rai K. They had been given a life sentence of simple imprisonment.
The Court stated that the vital principle guiding the administration of justice in criminal cases is that the most favourable view of the accused should be considered when deciding whether the evidence presented in the case supports the accused’s guilt or innocence.
The Court’s top priority is ensuring no injustices are committed. The acquittal of a criminal can result in injustice just as much as the conviction of an innocent person.
Prosecution:
The prosecution’s case was that on April 17, 2014, one Nousheer and the accused Nos. 1 to 3 went in a car with the mutual intent to kill Nousheer. As Nousheer was making his way to his home, accused Nos. 1 and 2 restrained him close to the home of CW.6-Raman and struck the deceased on his head, face, neck, shoulder, and both of his hands with a sickle, causing grievous injuries to him.
As a result, According to the allegations, accused No. 3 assisted accused Nos. 1 and 2 in killing the deceased, Nosheer, by informing them of the victim’s whereabouts.
Two neighbours who were allegedly eyewitnesses to the incident gave testimony to the prosecution, which was their primary source of evidence.
Defense Counsel:
Defense Counsel argued that despite their testimony being highly inconsistent, the trial court completely relied on the testimony of PW.22 and PW.24, who are supposed eyewitnesses to the incident. It was emphasized that neither the accused nor the witnesses made any noise or attempted to stop them from conducting the crime. They neglected to inform the police, as well. Even the alleged weapons used in the crime’s conduct were left unidentified.
The Karnataka HC Bench:Â
The judge began by referring to testimony from the complainant, who was labelled hostile by the prosecution. The bench noted that he conceded that his advocate, one Sunil, wrote the complaint and that he had not read through its contents. Additionally, he was ignorant of the incident’s motivation.
The Court then turned to the testimony of the eyewitnesses and stated that after carefully reviewing the testimony of this witness, there is considerable merit to the argument made by the learned Senior counsels for the appellants that the testimony provided by these witnesses regarding the incident cannot be relied upon to the fullest extent.
In light of the prosecution’s inability to follow Section 100(4) of the CrPC to properly retrieve the weapons used in the offense at the request of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the bench held Despite multiple residences being located in and around the location where the firearms were seized, as revealed by PW.29, the investigation officer failed to verify the neighbors’ presence in the area. Therefore, the Court doubts the recovery because the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. were not followed.Â
The bench that the Sessions Judge disregarded several genuinely raised reasonable issues regarding the prosecution’s evidence and actions in withholding the crucial witness.
Therefore, it is necessary to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. In light of this, the court believed that the prosecution failed to establish against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
