LI Network
Published on: December 17, 2023 at 14:22 IST
The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal appeal and clarified that the mere withholding of witnesses does not automatically lead to an ‘adverse inference’ against the prosecution.
Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that each case must be evaluated based on its totality of circumstances to determine whether an adverse inference is warranted.
Addressing concerns about eyewitnesses being close relatives of the deceased, the Court asserted that their testimony should not be dismissed outright but subjected to closer scrutiny.
After careful examination, the Court found the eyewitnesses’ accounts to be of exceptional quality, emphasizing the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity.
The Court further stated that if independent witnesses, unrelated to the involved parties, are available and the prosecution chooses not to examine them, an adverse inference can be drawn. However, when eyewitness testimony is deemed of high quality, the quantity of witnesses becomes less significant.
In the case under consideration, three accused individuals were convicted for the murder of the deceased and assaulting prosecution witnesses. While the main accused faced charges under Section 302 of the IPC, the other two appellants were convicted under the same provision read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the appellants, emphasizing that Section 34 was appropriately applied to them due to their shared common intention with the main accused.
The Court clarified that Section 34 does not necessitate proving prior conspiracy or premeditation, and a common intention can be formed just before or during the occurrence. The ruling concluded by upholding the sentences of the appellants, instructing them to surrender before the Trial Court.
In a noteworthy mention, the Court suggested that the appellants could be considered for permanent remission by the State Government when they qualify. This consideration, however, would be subject to the applicable remission policy.
Case Details: MAHESHWARI YADAV vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR,
