2022 SCMR 986
Delayed recording of statement of PW under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reduces its value to nil unless and until it is explained rendering justiciable reasonings.
As far as the abscondence of the appellant for a period of about six months is concerned, this question was not put to the appellant in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C, therefore, the same cannot be used against him. The medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular account as regards injury No. 3 on the right hip of the deceased is concerned, which in-fact was an exit wound but according to the prosecution witnesses of ocular account the same was an entry wound. In these circumstances, a dent in the prosecution’s case has been created, benefit of which must be given to the appellant. It is a settled law that single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution’s case is to be resolved in favour of the accused and burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. However, as discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt.
0 Comments