The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, emphasized that statements provided to the police by witnesses should not be considered as admissible evidence during trial proceedings.
The division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that such statements have limited applicability in a court of law.
Case Brief -
These observations were made in the context of overturning a 2007 Rajasthan High Court decision, where a witness's statement given to the police had been employed to discredit that witness.
In the said matter, the High Court had acquitted certain individuals of murder charges and, instead, convicted them of lesser offenses like rioting and causing hurt.
The High Court's rationale for its decision was based on the belief that the attack supposedly carried out by the accused was not premeditated. Instead, it was considered a clash between two semi-armed groups, especially since both sides suffered injuries, as per the High Court's conclusion.
The Rajasthan government and the complainant challenged the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court. The apex court, upon review, determined that the High Court had overstated the significance of the 'simple, doubtful, and entirely unexplained injuries' sustained by the accused to reach the conclusion that both sides had suffered injuries.
In light of this, the Supreme Court expressed the view that the High Court had diminished the severity of the brutal and murderous attack perpetrated by the accused on the victims, one of whom had tragically lost their life.
The Supreme Court firmly declared, "This approach of the High Court in our considered opinion was not correct. The High Court has gone wrong in its appreciation of the case, both on facts as well as on law."
As a result of this, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court's verdict was overturned. The accused, who had been granted bail, were instructed to surrender to face further legal proceedings.
However, instead of murder, the various accused were convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly, the jail sentence was also altered to one of seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy