New Delhi, Jan 30 The Supreme Court has reiterated that disclosure statements are not "so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more" to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with a criminal appeal, where the trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
As per the prosecution, the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife. Allegedly, there was previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased as the latter was allegedly involved in the murder of the former’s elder brother.
In the impugned decision, the conviction and sentence were confirmed in the appeal by the Kerala High Court.
Before the apex court, the appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was based on the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses, appearing to be chance witnesses. Further, as per the version of these two witnesses, there were other eyewitnesses who were not examined by the prosecution, requiring an adverse inference to be drawn.
On the other hand, the state government’s counsel argued that the evidence of both the eyewitnesses is believed by both the courts and no interference can be made with the impugned judgments. He also pointed out that the recovery of the weapon of the offence and bloodstained cloths was made at the instance of the appellant.
In its judgment, the top court said: "There are material omissions which amount to contradiction. Coupled with the material omissions, if we consider the conduct of both the witnesses, their version does not inspire confidence. Once evidence of these two witnesses is disbelieved, the only remaining evidence against the appellant is of the recovery of the knife at his instance."
It disbelieved the testimonies on several counts, including not reporting the incident to the police and not taking the deceased to a hospital. Quashing the conviction and sentencing orders, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of the offences alleged against him.
"The appellant has undergone incarceration for more than twelve years. Hence, he shall be forthwith set at liberty unless he is required in connection with any other case," said the Justice Oka-led Bench, as it allowed the appellant’s appeal.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor