2021 YLR 95
Accused were charged for committing murder of nephew of the complainant during robbery--Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and widow of deceased---Presence of both the said witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because in the FIR it was the case of complainant that two unknown accused persons intercepted deceased and his wife and upon resistance of deseased one accused person made a ire which landed on his abdomen- However while appearing before the Trial Court, both the witnesses of ocular account improved the story of FIR by stating that ee unkhown accused persons intercepted deceased and his wife--Inordinate deiay in the FIR also casted doubt about their presence on the spot at the time of incident---Accused were not nominated in the FIR either by name or description-- -Nothing was mentioned in the FIR or before the Trial Court as to whose fire hit the deceased---Occurrence allegediy took place at night time and no source of light was mentioned in the FIR---Allegedly, deceased and his wife were going on motorcycle when they were intercepted by the accused persons but the said motorcycle was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation---Evidence of wajtakar furnished by a witness was of no avail to the prosecution because in the statement of said witness, there was no mention that the accused persons were in perplexed condition when they crossed him on motorcycle---Identification parade conducted in the case carried no value in the eye of law because in the FIR descriptions/features such as height, complexion and physique of the accused were not given;--Circumstances established that the prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against the accused.
0 Comments