Breaking: Supreme Court Acquits Three Death Row Convicts, Holds Prosecution Utterly Failed To Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The Supreme Court acquitted three murder accused who were sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court.

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Momin Khan was accused of murdering his parents, brother and other relatives following a property dispute. Jaikam Khan is a cousin of Momin Khan. Sajid is Jaikam Khan's son. Momin Khan (A­1), Jaikam Khan (A­3), Sajid (A­4) were sentenced to death by the Trial Court. Their appeals were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. Nazra, wife of Momin Khan was also sentenced to death by the Trial Court. But the High Court set aside the conviction recorded against her.

Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appearing on behalf of the appellant­ Momin Khan (A­1) submitted that the entire case rests on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses. That, an adverse inference needs to be drawn on account of non-­examination of independent witnesses, though they were very much available.

Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appeared on behalf of Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4), submitted that insofar as the said accused are concerned, the prosecution story is totally unbelievable. That the recovery of clothes and weapon is totally farcical. That the evidence of related witnesses will have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection and it will not be safe to pass an order of conviction on their sole testimony without there being any corroboration.

The court noted that the prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and the accused. These two witnesses cannot be considered to be wholly reliable to base an order of conviction solely on their testimonies, the court said after referring to evidence on record.

"47. As already discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that though P.W.1­ Ali Sher Khan could have witnessed the assault on deceased Shaukeen Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad could have witnessed the assault on deceased Shaukeen Khan and deceased Mausam Khan, it is difficult to believe that they could have witnessed the assault on the other four deceased persons. We are also of the view that the said witnesses cannot be said to be wholly unreliable. They would fall in the category of 'neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable' and as such, we are of the view that a greater degree of care and caution would be required and a corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, would be necessary to pass an order of conviction", the court said.

The other circumstances, the court noted, on which the prosecution relies, are as under:

A. Arrest of the accused immediately after the incident;

B. Recovery of the weapons alleged to have been used in the crime at the instance of the accused.

C. Recovery of the bloodstained clothes alleged to have been worn by the accused while committing the crime.

D. Motive.

Referring to the evidence in relation to these circumstances, the bench observed that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While allowing the appeal, the court observed:

"We are at pains to observe the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court, particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High Court confirmed it. 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."

Amazed by the manner in which HC dealt with the matter

The Supreme Court observed that it was amazed by the manner in which the High Court dealt with the matter. It noted that the High Court held recovery of the clothes to have been proved by ignoring the principles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

"We are amazed by the manner in which the High Court has dealt with the present matter....The finding is not only contrary to the well-settled law interpreting Section 27 of the Evidence Act but also attempts to put a burden on the accused, which does not shift unless prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt", the Supreme Court said..

The Court held that the findings of the trial court and High Court were based on "surmises and conjectures".

"...the observations are nothing but conjectures and surmises, without there being any evidentiary support to them. It is really surprising, as to how the Additional Sessions Judge could have dealt with the present case in such a casual manner when he was considering the question of life and death of four accused", the Court observed.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment