Supreme Court Throws Out Murder Conviction in Relationship-Related Case.
02 April 2024
Acquittal >> Criminal Law | Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law | Evidence >> Criminal Law
In a twisty case involving love, loss, and alleged murder, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted two siblings accused of killing a man over a past relationship. The siblings, Ballu Chaurasiya and Jamna Bai, had been convicted by the High Court but the Apex court overturned the decision, citing a lack of concrete evidence.
The deceased, Mahesh Sahu, was involved with Anita, Ballu Chaurasiya's sister. The couple lived together for a period before Anita married someone else. However, Mahesh and Anita reportedly continued to communicate, angering the Chaurasiya siblings according to the prosecution.
The prosecution built its case on the testimony of a witness, Govind, who claimed to have seen Ballu Chaurasiya dragging a dead body from his house while his mother, Jamna Bai, cleaned bloodstains at the door. However, the trial court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the deceased's parents and other prosecution witnesses, leading to their acquittal.
The High Court, however, took a different view. They reversed the acquittal, believing Govind's account and citing the motive – Mahesh's relationship with Anita – as well as the presence of blood on clothes seized from the scene.
The Supreme Court, however, sided with the trial court's reasoning. They criticized the High Court's judgment, stating it relied on conjectures and surmises. The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court did not adequately address the trial court's detailed explanation for rejecting witness testimonies. Additionally, the High Court's decision to accept the testimony of the investigating officer, which the trial court had discredited, was deemed to lack proper justification.
This case highlights the importance of the burden of proof lying with the prosecution. In order to convict someone of a crime, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the principle that appellate courts should not overturn acquittals unless the trial court's reasoning is demonstrably flawed.