M A I N   N E W S

Eyewitnesses’ evidence to get priority
S.S. Negi
Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 13
The statements of eyewitnesses would get precedence over all other evidences in a murder case, the Supreme Court has ruled. It also directed the courts below that their endeavour should be to assess them first to find out if the prosecution case is acceptable or not.

“In cases where eyewitnesses’ evidence is acceptable, all other evidences that might have been produced by the prosecution recede to the background. It becomes more so in the case of eyewitnesses who themselves have suffered injuries in the alleged incident,” a Bench comprising Mr Justice N. Santhosh Hegde and Mr Justice B.P. Singh said.

The guidance to the trial court was issued by the Bench while allowing an appeal by four accused from Punjab, who had been awarded life sentence by the trial court in a murder case, which was also upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Setting aside the conviction of Mohinder Singh, Jagjit Singh, Manjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh in a double murder case, registered at the Hajipur police station in Mukerian-Dauya area on September 11, 1995, the apex court also extended the benefit to two other convicts Sarbjit Singh and Nirmal Singh, whose appeals were rejected by it earlier due to certain legal defects.

Their conviction was also upheld by the high court. Two other accused were discharged by the trial court at the time of framing of charges.

The appeals of the accused were allowed by the apex court because it found “some glaring discrepancies” in the prosecution case regarding the examination of the eyewitnesses.

“We find that the courts below have misdirected themselves while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,” the judges said, adding that: “We find that there is absolutely no difference in the prosecution case about the involvement of the appellants.

The court directed the jail authorities to release the convicted persons forthwith if they were not required in connection with any other case.