Munmun Kaur-
Published On: December 16, 2021 at 11:00 IST
Supreme Court acquitted 3 Death row Convicts who had been Convicted by the lower Courts in Jaikam Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh. This was a case of family rivalry wherein 4 Accused persons were charged with the Killing of 6 family members.
The entire case was based on the testimony of the 2 eyewitnesses who were family members. The Trial Court had convicted all 4 Accused and sentenced them to Death whereas, on Appeal, the High Court confirmed the Conviction and sentence of 3 Accused and Acquitted 1.
Supreme Court was convinced that the Prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the 3 Accused beyond a reasonable doubt, hence leading to the Acquittal.
At the same time, the Apex Court showed its disappointment at the casual approach of the Sessions Court and the High Court on such a critical question of the life and Death of 4 people.
A Three-Judge Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, and BV Nagarathna observed, “The trial court and the High Court were expected to exercise a greater degree of scrutiny, care and circumspection while directing the accused to be hanged till death,”
Senior Counsel Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for one of the Accused argued that the entire case was based on the ocular testimony of the two eyewitnesses.
Ramakrishnan contended that the villagers that gathered immediately after the incident being the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and therefore, adverse inference needs to be drawn from that.
Ramakrishnan contended that the villagers that gathered immediately after the incident being the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and therefore, adverse inference needs to be drawn from that.
Ramakrishnan also submitted that there were no reasons given by the Trial Court or the High Court justifying the award of Capital Punishment and that there was not even a whisper as to why there was no possibility of any reformation or rehabilitation of the Accused.
Senior Counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the other 2 Accused contended that, there were discrepancies in the case of the prosecution with regards to the motive attributed to the Accused and Witness’s trustworthiness.
The Apex Court based on the submissions of the parties and after examining the material on record concluded that the two eyewitnesses were neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable to solely base the order of Conviction on their testimonies and that a greater degree of corroboration is necessary for that.
Also Read:Convictions to Bribery taker and giver both – Parameters to Judge
Why is the Rape Conviction rate so less?