Murder Conviction Overturned: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Madhya Pradesh Shooting Case

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution relied on the following key pieces of evidence:

• Eyewitness Testimony: PW15, a key prosecution witness, claimed to have seen the appellant at the scene.
• Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report suggested that the deceased had been shot at close range.
• Forensic Evidence: Firearms allegedly recovered from the appellant and co-accused were tested.
• Recovery of Weapons: The police claimed to have recovered a pistol from the appellant.

Defence’s Arguments

The appellant argued that:

• The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of PW15, who was an unreliable witness.
• Other prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding the sequence of events.
• The recovery of the firearm was not conducted in accordance with legal procedures.
• The forensic evidence was inconclusive.
• There was no independent corroboration of the appellant’s presence at the crime scene.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s evidence and found multiple inconsistencies.

Unreliability of PW15’s Testimony

The Court observed that PW15 was the prosecution’s key witness but had several credibility issues:

“The evidence of PW15 cannot be relied upon as against the other prosecution witnesses themselves, which stood uncontroverted.”

PW15 claimed to have seen the incident but arrived at the scene much later, as per other witnesses. The Court noted that PW15 had a history of criminal cases and was facing charges under the NDPS Act.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/tehelka-tapes-and-conspiracy-allegations-supreme-courts-ruling-on-sit-investigation/

Failure to Prove Recovery of Weapons

The prosecution claimed that firearms were recovered from the appellant. However, the Court noted:

“The recovery having not been proved in the manner known to law, coupled with inadequate evidence on record to implicate the appellant, we have no hesitation in overturning the conviction.”

The investigating officer (PW16) admitted in cross-examination that he had not prepared a proper recovery memo under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Contradictions in Witness Testimony

Multiple prosecution witnesses gave conflicting statements:

• PW1 and PW3 were present at the scene but did not see the accused.
• PW14 (the deceased’s father) stated that he was informed of the incident by PW15, but PW3 said PW15 arrived much later.
• PW7 (the doctor) opined that the gunshot wounds could have been caused by a single weapon, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that multiple shots were fired.

Failure to Establish Motive

The Court found that while there was a property dispute, there was no strong evidence linking the appellant to the crime:

“A weak or unproven motive cannot substitute for concrete evidence.”

Legal Precedents Considered

The Court relied on several judgments:

• Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan: “When prosecution witnesses support the defense, their testimony must be considered.”
• Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan: “Prosecution witnesses who are not declared hostile cannot be ignored.”
• Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.: “Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain before conviction.”

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court ruled:

• The conviction was based on insufficient evidence.
• The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
• The appellant was acquitted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the principle that conviction must be based on solid evidence. In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and leave no room for doubt.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-reduces-sentence-in-kerala-abkari-act-case-sunil-kumar-v-state-of-kerala/

This ruling serves as a significant precedent for future cases, emphasizing that courts must critically examine evidence before upholding a conviction.

Petitioner Name: Virendra.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice M.M. Sundresh.
Place Of Incident: Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-07-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: virendra-vs-state-of-madhya-prad-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-07-2022.pdf