Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, June 1: The High Court has acquitted two persons from murder charges who were awarded life imprisonment by the court below in a 13-year-old case of death of a person.
The convicted persons challenged the life sentence awarded to them by the Principal Sessions Judge Kulgam by way of two appeals.
The FIR No. 343/2013 was registered at Police Station Kulgam for offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B RPC. By virtue of the impugned judgment, both the appellants came to be convicted for the offence u/s 302 RPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
A fine of ?3,00,000/- was also imposed upon appellant Ali Mohammad Dar, with a default sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment.
However, appellant- Muzamilla who was the wife of the deceased, no fine was ultimately imposed upon her. The Trial Court, while awarding the sentence, also made a reference for confirmation.
The division bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sanjay Parihar while acquitting both the appellants said the benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused because the law presumes every person innocent unless proven guilty through reliable and unimpeachable-evidence.
“In the present case, the prosecution evidence suffers from serious infirmities, material omissions, and inconsistencies which create substantial doubt regarding the truthfulness and reliability of the prosecution story. Consequently, the appellants are clearly entitled to the benefit of doubt” the court said adding with “Their conviction and sentence, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, is therefore, set aside. Accordingly, the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them and, if in custody, shall be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case”.
The bench recorded that it remains fully conscious of the fact that the deceased met a homicidal death. However, the mere fact that a homicide has occurred does not automatically justify the conviction of the accused unless there exists reliable evidence connecting them with the commission of the offence.
“The prosecution was required to prove not only that the death was homicidal in nature, but also that it was the appellants and none else who caused such death. In the present case, there is a complete absence of tangible, independent, and legally admissible evidence linking the appellants to the homicidal death of the deceased. Instead, the entire prosecution case appears to have been built primarily upon the disclosure statements allegedly made by the appellants during police investigation”, reads the judgment.
The bench added that the trial Court, while recording conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, appears to have been greatly influenced by such disclosure statements without properly appreciating the settled legal principles governing their admissibility and evidentiary worth.
“The trial Court failed to notice the material contradictions, inconsistencies, and serious gaps in the prosecution case and consequently arrived at findings which cannot be sustained in law”, reads the judgment.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel