In Brief
The appellants were convicted of murdering two men in a village conflict stemming from a water dispute. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction on account of serious defects in the investigation and prosecution evidence. The dying declaration of one victim was recorded by the investigating officer without a magistrate or doctor present, and showed signs of being created after a thumb impression was obtained. Eyewitnesses could not identify the accused by name and only identified them in court years later without any test identification parade. The investigating officer suppressed the statement of a key eyewitness and multiple first information reports were filed. Given these fundamental defects, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt and allowed their appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.