Paridhi Arya
Published on May 23, 2022 at 21:40 IST
The three Judges Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Chief Justice of India N V Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli observed that burden of proving ingredients of any offence is on prosecution not on accused.
The Appeal was filed against the Order of Karnataka High Court.
In this case, the deceased was watching TV and then suddenly he got electric shock from the telephone wire which the employees of telephone department were repairing.
The Court observed that it was difficult to accept that telephone wire didn’t melt from coming in contact with power line of 11 KV.
The Court observed “Even assuming that the Deceased and the Prosecution witnesses who received the shock were wearing slippers at the time of contact causing resistance in the current, 11KV is still too strong and any contact with such a high voltage current in all probability should have left any person who came in contact dead and his/her body charred. For reference standard domestic voltage in India is only around 220V.”
“In case of circumstantial evidence, there is a risk of jumping to conclusions in haste. While evaluating such evidence the jury should bear in mind that inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference from the facts.”
The Court observed that, “In the present case however, the conviction of the accused persons seems wholly unjustified against the weight of the evidence adduced.”
Also Read: Provisions of Burden of Proof under India Evidence Act