Appellant Acquitted Due to Discrepancies in Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction.
11 January 2024
Acquittal >> Criminal Law | Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law | Evidence >> Criminal Law
In Nazim Abdul Rehman Shaikh v/s The State of Maharashtra., the appellant, along with three co-accused, was convicted in 1996 for charges including house trespass, robbery, and possession of illegal arms. The incident occurred on May 11, 1992, when four robbers, including the appellant, entered the complainant's (PW-1 Deepak Chavan) flat in Goregaon. They assaulted the family members and stole money and valuables. Two of the robbers were apprehended, but the other two escaped.
It
During the trial, discrepancies arose in the testimonies of key witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5). For example, some witnesses provided inconsistent details regarding the number of robbers and the exact timeline of events. There was also a lack of corroborating medical evidence for the assault on PW-1. The prosecution's case lacked independent witness testimony and some key individuals, such as PW-1's brother Ajay, were not examined. As a result, the trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented. However, upon reviewing the case, the appellate court found the evidence unreliable and inconclusive.
The court emphasized that the prosecution had not proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant's bail was canceled, with the fine refunded.