The Supreme Court states that the prosecution should not be presumed guilty just because they choose not to present certain witnesses
Case: MAHESHWARI YADAV vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Coram: Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3840 OF 2023
Court Observation: “It is not axiomatic that in every case where the eyewitnesses are withheld from the court, an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. The totality of the circumstances must be considered for concluding whether an adverse inference could be drawn.”
“when independent witnesses are available who are not connected with the rival parties, and the prosecution omits to examine them by confining its case to examining related witnesses, an adverse inference can undoubtedly be drawn against the prosecution. When the evidence of the eyewitnesses is of sterling quality, an adverse inference need not be drawn. Quality is more important than quantity.”
“In a given case, where the offence is punishable under Section 302 of IPC, when the common intention is proved, but no overt act of assaulting the deceased is attributed to the accused who have been implicated based on Section 34, vicarious liability under Section 34 will be attracted. In this case, the bullet was fired by the accused No. 3, as a result of which, the deceased lost his life.,”
“To bring a case within Section 34, it is not necessary to prove prior conspiracy or premeditation. It is possible to form a common intention just before or during the occurrence.”
Previous Posts
Candidates With B.Ed. Not Eligible For Primary School Teaching Jobs: Patna High Court
Keywords
The Supreme Court states that the prosecution should not be presumed guilty
