10 April 2024 Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

India's Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction for a father and son in a recent case. The high court had convicted the pair based on an appeal from the state after they were acquitted by the trial court. However, the Supreme Court found fault with the high court's reasoning and reinstated the acquittal.

The Case: A Deadly Assault?

The case involved the death of Punjabhai, allegedly beaten to death by the two appellants. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Karshanbhai (PW-4), who claimed to have witnessed the assault and been injured himself by the defendants.

Trial Court Acquits Due to Doubtful Witness:

The trial court, however, found inconsistencies in PW-4's account and noted a lack of corroborating evidence. Specifically, the court highlighted discrepancies in the timing of PW-4's own injuries and his claim of witnessing the assault. Additionally, the court considered PW-4's ongoing land dispute with the appellants as a possible motive for creating a false narrative.

High Court Rejects Acquittal, But Supreme Court Intervenes:

The state appealed the acquittal, and the high court reversed the decision, convicting the appellants. The Supreme Court, upon further appeal, disagreed with the high court's reasoning.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court identified several flaws in the high court's judgment. Firstly, the high court failed to properly consider if the trial court's acquittal was a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Secondly, the high court mistakenly placed the burden of proof on the defendants. In a criminal case, the prosecution always bears the responsibility of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court also pointed to the inconsistencies in PW-4's testimony and his potential motive as factors raising doubts about his credibility. Finally, the high court's dismissal of the trial court's reasons for disbelieving PW-4 was deemed to be an error.

This case underscores the significance of a fair trial and the legal principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Supreme Court's decision ensures that convictions are based on strong evidence and not merely on the absence of a counter-narrative from the accused.