LI Network
Published on: December 16, 2023 at 15:58 IST
The Supreme Court acquitted an individual convicted by the Madras High Court under Section 304 of the IPC, citing the prosecution’s failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court, comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar, held that the accused had the right to be acquitted based on the justice of the case.
The prosecution argued that the appellant’s absconding for over three years indicated guilt, especially as he was apprehended in Kerala after an intensive search. However, the Supreme Court maintained that mere abscondence is not sufficient to establish a person’s guilt.
The bench observed: “…abscondence by a person against whom an FIR has been lodged and who is under expectation of being apprehended is not very unnatural. Mere absconding by the appellant after alleged commission of crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself cannot establish his guilt or his guilty conscience.”
The case involved a dispute over wages, resulting in the appellant allegedly causing the death of the victim.
While the High Court convicted him under Section 304-Part II, the Supreme Court, after thorough examination, concluded that the circumstances leaned more towards the victim falling from a tree due to alcohol influence, leading to the fatal head injury.
The Court criticized the prosecution for not examining key witnesses present during the incident, highlighting the unreliability of the prosecution’s version.
The Court emphasized that conviction based on partial evidence is acceptable if credible, but in this instance, the prosecution’s version was deemed wholly unreliable.
The Supreme Court concluded that the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of satisfactory explanations, and the lack of relevant medical documents to support the cause of the victim’s head injury collectively raised doubts.
Consequently, the Court set aside the appellant’s conviction, asserting that his false implication could not be wholly ruled out.
CASE Title: SEKARAN V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2010