Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on May 7, 2024 acquitted a man for shooting down another person to death in 2002 after finding that the conduct of eyewitnesses was unnatural and entire sequence of events narrated by them did not inspire confidence.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta quashed and set aside judgments of the Allahabad High Court of 2019 and the trial court of Manipuri of 2003 and granted benefit of doubt to the accused appellant Jagvir Singh, in view of flimsy and wavering evidence.

According to the FIR lodged by first informant Ram Naresh, on August 31, 2002 following a quarrel between Omkar and deceased Sanju, accused Omkar and Jagbir, armed with rifle and country made pistol climbed on the roof of the house and fired shots on Sanju, who died of injuries.

The appellants contended testimony of so called eyewitnesses was concocted as they were not present on the scene. There is a gap of almost 3-4 houses between the two spots. The eyewitnesses were admittedly not anywhere near Sanju (deceased) and were on the ground when the gunshots were fired.

The state counsel, on the contrary, submitted the court should be slow in interfering with concurrent findings.

After going through witnesses' deposition, the bench said the entire prosecution case is shrouded under a cloud of doubt.

"The so-called eye witnesses, Ram Prakash (PW-1) and Ram Naresh (PW-5) were the closest relatives of the victim. They allegedly saw the fatal assault on the victim and yet did not take any step to save him from the assault. If these witnesses PW-1 and PW-5 had actually seen the assault, their reaction and conduct does not match up with the reaction expected from them.Their conduct is highly unnatural, and we find it difficult to accept their presence at the crime scene," the bench said.

The court found the claim made by Ram Prakash (PW-1) in his evidence that he and Ram Naresh (PW-5) had reached the roof of the house from where they saw Omkar firing at Sanju is a sheer piece of concoction and unacceptable on the face of the record.

The PW 1 did not allege that accused appellant Jagvir Singh also fired at Sanju, it noted.

"We further find that the conduct of the eye-witnesses Ram Prakash (PW-1) and Ram Naresh (PW-5) is totally unnatural. Both the witnesses claimed to have seen Sanju (deceased) being chased and surrounded by accused Durvin and Sobran (both acquitted by the trial court). Despite, that, neither of them, made an attempt to save Sanju from these assailants or to at least raise a hue and cry so that the neighbouring people could be sounded about the incident. Neither of the witnesses made an attempt to intervene or to shield Sanju," the bench said.

The story put forth by the witnesses that accused Durvin and Sobran were also amongst the four offenders who were making an attempt to eliminate Sanju is unacceptable and unbelievable, the bench said.

The court also noted Sultan Singh (PW-2) admitted that he was working in his field when the incident took place and thus, there was no possibility that, he could have seen the incident with his own eyes. "But despite that, the prosecution tried to project him as an eyewitness of the incident which again creates a grave doubt on the truthfulness and bona fides of the prosecution story," it said.

"Indisputably, Sanju received a single gunshot injury which proved fatal. Considering the significant disparities and discrepancies in the evidence of Ram Prakash (PW-1) and Ram Naresh (PW-5) regarding the identity of the assailant who actually fired at Sanju (deceased), we feel that the conviction of accused appellant Jagvir Singh on the basis of such flimsy and wavering evidence is not at all justified," the bench said.

The court said the trial court as well as the High Court committed glaring error while holding that Ram Prakash (PW-1), Sultan Singh (PW-2) and Ram Naresh (PW-5) were eyewitnesses to the incident and that they saw the accused appellant along with accused Omkar firing at Sanju (deceased).

"These findings are unsustainable on the face of the record in view of the analyses and discussion of evidence," the bench said, directing release of the appellant from the custody if not required in any other case.