Convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal (Para 2)
Assuming that PW-2 really knew the appellants before the incident and he had seen the appellants while firing shots at the deceased, we find that PW-2 did not identify the accused who were present in the Court as the accused who killed the deceased. In fact, the examination-in-chief of the PW-2 shows that the witness has not identified the accused who were present in the Court as there is no such statement in the examinationin- chief. A witness who claims to be an eye witness must be in a position to identify the accused in the Court. (Para 6)
Assuming that PW-2 had seen the appellants firing shots at the deceased, unless the said eye witness identifies the accused as Dharma and Parkash, the prosecution cannot establish that the accused who were prosecuted were guilty of the offence. As stated earlier, the only other eye witness PW-3 was declared as hostile. (Para 8)
This is a case where the eye witness has not identified both the accused in the Court. In the circumstances, the appellants could not have been convicted in the absence of their identification by the eye witness before the Court. (Para 8)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 387 SC
[2023 INSC 905]
Dharma @ Dharam Singh & Anr. Vs. State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2011-Decided on 5-10-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-387-SC.pdf
