Supreme Court acquits man facing gallows; criticises prosecution, courts

Time of India

3 days ago

Supreme Court (Picture credit: ANI)
NEW DELHI: Eleven years after he was arrested for allegedly killing his six family members, including three children, for which he was awarded death sentence by trial court and Punjab and Haryana high court, Supreme Court has acquitted the person saying that there was no credible evidence to prove his guilt and he was being sent to gallows because of court's enthusiasm to deliver justice.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said the trial court and the HC erred in convicting the person on the basis of statements of alleged eyewitnesses which was full of contradiction and their being present at the site of crime was also doubtful. The court said that the case is a reflection of breakdown of legal system where a person is not only punished but sent to gallows despite no credible evidence.
"The breakdown of the legal system becomes apparent when such haste to lay a finger of blame on somebody leads to a shoddy investigation and a poorly conducted trial. The result is a loosely tied prosecution case with glaring loopholes all across and yet the courts' enthusiasm to deliver justice in such a heinous crime ensures that the accused person ends up on the death row, albeit without sufficient evidence. This is precisely the misery which the instant case entails," the bench said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Indonesia melirik jet tempur J-10 milik China. Mengapa para pakar memperingatkan untuk hati-hati?
CNA Indonesia
Baca
Undo
The incident occurred in Phagwara in 2014 and it was alleged that the murder was done out of family dispute. Examining threadbare the statement of witnesses, the apex court said they did not inspire confidence and were not reliable.
"The internal inconsistencies and lack of corroboration cast serious doubts and snatch away the degree of accuracy that is to be attained while determining the culpability of an accused in cases of murder.
W
e cannot turn a blind eye to the obvious inconsistencies in the depositions of its main witnesses which indicate deliberate embellishment and coaching, rendering these testimonies unreliable. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no credence can be lent to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and their account of being "eyewitness" to the incident or having seen the accused has to be discarded," the bench said.
The trial court has held that dacoity or commission of offence by a stranger party has to be ruled out due to the gruesome nature of the crime but the bench said "merely lack of an alternative plausible explanation to the incident cannot serve as enough evidence in itself to send a man to the gallows, whose guilt otherwise remains unestablished".
"At the cost of repetition, we must state that the standard of proof is an absolutely strict one and cannot be faltered with. When at stake are human lives and the cost is blood, the matter needs to be dealt with utmost sincerity. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the above discussion, we cannot bring ourselves to hold the accused-appellant guilty of the charged offence as his guilt has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt," the court said, acquitting the accused who had been in jail for the last 11 years.