In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court has overturned a ruling by a retired High Court judge, emphasizing the significance of expert testimony in criminal proceedings. The case, involving the appellant-accused, saw the apex court quashing convictions under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Central to the Supreme Court’s judgment was the absence of critical evidence, notably the testimony of a ballistic expert and the corresponding report. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stressed that while not every gunshot-related case demands expert examination, its omission could prove fatal if the prosecution’s evidence, particularly eyewitness testimonies, lacks credibility or exhibits significant inconsistencies.
Highlighting the case’s deficiencies, the Supreme Court noted glaring contradictions in witness accounts, exacerbated by the failure to produce crucial testimony and forensic evidence. The court underscored the principle of granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused when guilt remains unproven beyond reasonable doubt.
The decision underscores the nuanced balance between procedural requirements and the substance of evidence in criminal trials. In this instance, the court’s meticulous scrutiny led to the accused’s acquittal, signaling the importance of robust legal standards in upholding justice.
With the verdict, the accused’s conviction was set aside, and immediate release was directed. The ruling serves as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness and integrity in the legal process.
The case, designated as Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024, stands as a reminder of the critical role expert testimony plays in determining legal outcomes and upholding the principles of justice.
[Legal counsels for the appellant: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Mr. Sitesh Kumar, Mr. Arvind Kumar
Legal counsels for the respondent: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Mr. Ankit Goel]
