In the night there was an exchange of fire between men in uniform and members of the public, but there is no reliable evidence that the exchange of fire was with a view to kill. Moreover, the deceased did not die of a rifle bullet injury. Rather, he died from a .12 bore gunshot which could not be ascribed to rifles issued to the accused persons. there is no recovery of a .12 bore gun from any of the accused persons facing trial. The police arrived at the spot and took the injured to the hospital. According to the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were present at the spot during this period. Therefore, if they were really involved they could have been identified by either PW3 or PW6, but there was no such event. Further, the continued presence of the accused at the spot is a circumstance which goes in favour of the accused, being a conduct that belies a guilty mind. Here the circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime. In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. Held, does not require interference.
Rejection of application in case of acquittal under Ss. 302 and 34 IPC, whether proper, determined.
[CBI v. Shyam Bihari, (2023) 8 SCC 197]
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments.
Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/