- Affirming the order of the High Court of Allahabad, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC or Court),in Karan Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh has observed that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and not beyond all iota of doubt. The appeal was filed against the order of the High Court affirming the sentence of the Trial Court.
- The appeal arose out of a payment dispute; the Appellant and his accomplices were accused of open firing at the deceased and other members of his group. The complainant’s brother was shot dead by one of the accused. Relying on the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, the appellant and his accomplices were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
- On appeal to the High Court, the order of the Trial Court was upheld and the Court observed that minor discrepancies and/ or improvements/ embellishments were insignificant and ought to be ignored.
- The Counsel for the Appellant argued that while other evidence was produced, the weapon of crime was never discovered and also submitted that the main injured had himself testified that he had not seen the Appellant at the spot when the incident took place. It was also contended that the body of the deceased contained pellets fired from another gun and there were no injuries caused by bullets fired from a rifle, which the Appellant carried.
- He further argued that the Trial Court completely ignored the chain of evidence to wrongly conclude that the accused persons were guilty, particularly the Appellant, Karan Singh.
- He contended that as per the established law, the doctrine of severability does not apply in the case of a statement of a witness in a criminal trial. Either the whole statement has to be discarded by declaring the witness hostile or else the entire statement has to be relied upon.
- The Appellant placed reliance on Palvinder Kaur vState of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354 and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v Stateof Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 to support his arguments.
- The Counsel for the prosecution argued that while there were minor discrepancies in the statement of the eye-witnesses all material particulars have been corroborated. He placed reliance on Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Another v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 3352 to support his argument.
- Furthermore, the Prosecution submitted that the account of the witnesses tallied with the submission of the Doctor examining the witness. Thus, in the light of the above, the conviction must be upheld.
- Referring to various legal precedents wherein it was held that Court must not give undue importance to omissions, contradictions/ discrepancies which do not form part of the principal matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness, the Court held that it saw no reason to reverse the order of the Trail Court and the High Court.
- Dismissing the appeal, the Court also observed that the death of the other accusedcould be a ground for acquittal of the Appellant.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
