The High Court referred to Section 437 of CrPC for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence in three specific circumstances.
Supreme Court directed the petitioner to cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial and not to interact with any of the witnesses in the instant case.
“There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court noted ASI’s submission regarding absence of complaint against the petitioner regarding threatening the witnesses, as against the contentions.
Supreme Court did not deem it safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence and acquitted the appellant.
Supreme Court concurred with the Punjab and Haryana High Court that incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of evidence was not complete to interfere with a degree of certainty of accused having committed the crime.
The Court said that the case in hand was a quintessential case where to solve a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected.
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
The Supreme Court refused to grant the benefit of General Exception of unsoundness of mind under IPC in favour of the appellant, since he failed to discharge his burden of proof.
It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.