LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label benefit of doubt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label benefit of doubt. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2016

Benefit of Doubt = As per chemical test report poison was not found. There was no wound caused to larynx before death. As the body of the deceased was highly decomposed the cause of death was not mentioned by the Doctor, P.W.20 in the post-mortem report he answered that that since the body was decomposed he was unable to say so, thus, the cause of death has not been established.. No internal and external injury has been mentioned in the autopsy report. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the death was caused by strangulating the deceased and the piece of nylon saree was used to cause the death. Hence, recovery of the piece of nylon saree is of no value as the prosecution has not been able to link the same with the commission of the offence.The appellant had clearly stated in the statement under Section 313 that she had gone to the police station on 23.5.2005 along with photograph of the deceased and had also stated that the deceased frequently used to go outside for 2 to 5 days. This explains her conduct, nothing more can be attributed to her exclusive knowledge which she was required to explain within the purview of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Knowledge of any other fact is not attributable to her in view of the evidence adduced in the case. Thus, the submission based upon the provisions contained in Section 106 is of no avail to the respondent.The prosecution has also not led evidence that the appellant was ever required to identify the articles of the deceased. There is nothing on record indicating that they were shown to her for the purpose of identification and she had refused to identify them. In the instant case, which is based on the circumstantial evidence, particularly when the body has not been recovered at the instance of the accused, the recoveries of moped and piece of nylon saree which were made are not proved to be related to commission of offence, they are not proved to be incriminating materials. The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Susheela, P.W.4 is prima facie unusual and doubtful and is not corroborated by other evidence on record. Merely, the fact that the deceased had left the house on 16.5.2005, as per version of appellant, cannot be used as a circumstance against her so as to fasten guilt. The deceased used to drink alcohol and used to spend money recklessly. Due to his bad habits, there may be so many enemies of him. How the deceased spent the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- which he received on execution of agreement is not on record. The prosecution has not been able to complete the chain of circumstances so as to fasten the guilt and to prove the commission of offence by the appellant beyond periphery of doubt. The father of appellant has also been extended benefit of doubt. As such, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt in view of the evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted giving her the benefit of doubt.

›
                                                                  Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...
Saturday, April 6, 2013

Benefit of doubt, scope of sec.149 of IPC = Quite often, people gather at the scene of offence out of curiosity. They do not share common object of the unlawful assembly. If a general allegation is made against large number of people, Court has to be cautious. It must guard against the possibility of convicting mere passive onlookers who did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly. Unless reasonable direct or indirect circumstances lend assurance to the prosecution case that they shared common object of the unlawful assembly, they cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC- We have already noted that witnesses are prone to exaggeration and the court has to sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses (See Leela Ram).= It is true that absence of the name of an accused in the FIR is not always indicative of his innocence because there may be some other clinching evidence on record to establish his complicity. But, in the aforementioned peculiar facts of this case, because of the absence of the names of these accused in the FIR, a doubt is created in the mind as to whether they could be really involved in the offence.- we feel that so far as A26-Niranjan, A28-Sambhu, A29-Probodh, A35-Satrughnan and A36-Duryadhan are concerned, evidence on record gives rise to suspicion about their involvement. But it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, is not enough to convict a person. Absence of their names in the FIR in the abovementioned facts, lead us to give them benefit of doubt.= In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. A26- Niranjan Das, A28-Sambhu Samanta, A29-Probodh Jana, A35- Satrughnan Patra and A36-Duryadhan Patra are given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the offences with which they were charged. They shall be forthwith released from custody unless otherwise required in any other case. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. - Before parting, we must express that the investigation of this case is far from satisfactory and recording of evidence is done in a casual manner. Justice is done only because of the inherent strength of the prosecution case and credible evidence of the honest rustic witnesses. Sessions cases involve the rights of the victims and rights of the accused. Even the society has a great stake in the proper conduct of sessions cases because they have relevance to the maintenance of law and order. Investigation of criminal cases must, therefore, be done very carefully and trials must be conducted with a sense of responsibility.

›
Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88 OF 2007 SUBAL GHORAI & ...