New Delhi, March 2 The Supreme Court on Wednesday junked an appeal by an accused challenging his conviction in a 42-year-old murder case, on the ground that as out of six accused, five have died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore he should be acquitted.
A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said: "We find no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. The fact that the trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during the appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal of the appellant. The appeal is thus dismissed."
In April 1980, Brahmpal Singh was shot dead in a dispute over the price of a buffalo. In August 1983, the trial court convicted six accused persons, including Karan Singh, for murder and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. In 2018, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Singh, along with other accused, challenging their conviction.
Singh was granted bail by trial court on June 13, 1980, and he was taken into custody on September 9 after the dismissal of his appeal by the high court. However, while the appeal was pending before the high court, five out of six accused persons died. Singh moved the top court challenging the high court order.
The bench said: "The appellant's presence has been proved by two eye witnesses. It has been proved by the eye witnesses, that the appellant carried a riflea. The prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done, and not beyond all iota of doubt."
Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove his client's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and there were clear discrepancies in evidence visible on the face of the record, therefore the appeal should be allowed.
But the bench noted: "The tenor of the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post mortem tends to support the case of the prosecution witnesses that all the accused persons, who were present, carrying arms had fired."
Dismissing the appeal, the bench said the fact that one of the injured witnesses may not have mentioned Singh, does not demolish the evidence of the other witnesses.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor