Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1401 - SUPREME COURTPlea of alibi - fire arm injury - requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt - discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence - HELD THAT:- There is no discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence but too much is sought to be made out by learned Counsel for the Appellant on the doctor not opining about the distance from which the fire arm injury was caused. Further, the eye witnesses are categorical that the other Accused attacked the deceased with knives. In such a process of five persons attacking the deceased it cannot be said that the deceased would be lying in the same position and, thus, there is every possibility of injuries both at the back and front. In the nature of the incident and the testimony of the eye witnesses, a doubt must be cast on the story and not merely some aspect of the food consumption pointed out. The remaining arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellant are based on plea of defective investigation, absence of independent witnesses but then there is no reason why the eye witnesses story, which is believable should not be given full credence. The test which is applied of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the endeavour should be to nick pick and somehow find some excuse to obtain acquittal. The last aspect urged by learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the IO has referred to the antecedents of the Appellant and other Accused, which has been erroneously taken into account by the High Court contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said provision stipulates that the previous bad character is not relevant except in reply, i.e., unless evidence has been given of a good character in which case it becomes relevant - despite best endeavour learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to cast any doubt on the impugned judgment of the trial court and the High Court. The story put forth by the prosecution has been established and has not been dented by the Appellant Accused so as to cast a doubt and entitle them to benefit of doubt - Appeal dismissed.
|