2008 (7) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden hereinafter?

Held that:- The provisions of Sections 35 and 54 are not ultra vires the Constitution of India. However, procedural requirements laid down therein are required to be strictly complied with. There are a large number of discrepancies in the treatment and disposal of the physical evidence. There are contradictions in the statements of official witnesses. Non-examination of independent witnesses and the nature of confession and the circumstances of the recording of such confession do not lead to the conclusion of the appellant's guilt.

Finding on the discrepancies although if individually examined may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution but if cumulative view of the scenario is taken, the prosecution's case must be held to be lacking in credibility.The fact of recovery has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt which is required to be established before the doctrine of reverse burden is applied. Recoveries have not been made as per the procedure established by law.

The investigation of the case was not fair. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Before, however, parting with this judgment, we would like to place emphasis on the necessity of disposal of such cases as quickly as possible. The High Courts should be well advised to device ways and means for stopping recurrence of such a case where a person undergoes entire sentence before he gets an opportunity of hearing before this Court. Appeal allowed.