The trial court has convicted the accused when accused was not identified by the eyewitness. In the trial eyewitness failed to identify the accused who had been alleged to be fired and looted five lakh rupees from the manager of the brick kiln. The story has been falsely made by the prosecution. When the investigating officer failed to catch the real offenders he falsely arrested two labourers from my brick field and made a false case against them. Money was not recovered from the accused.
They were compelled to make a confession. Both accused belong to Jharkhand and no one from their family to defend. Hence, I bore all legal expenses and defended them. Fortunately, in the trial the eyewitness did not identify the accused. Also there was no direct evidence, my advocate took a plea of alibi but court refused that place of occurrence is near to the place where accused were working. There are many flaws in the judgment. Please give any ruling of the high court or supreme court in support of the case because I am going to appeal against the order of the trial court.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The major and material flaw in your case is that the eyewitnesses failed to identify the accused. Additionally, the proceeds of the crime were not recovered from the accused. It appears that the investigating officer arrested the accused shortly after the commission of the offense, likely based on information provided by eyewitnesses to the police.
In this scenario, the identity of the accused and the recovery of the proceeds are both material facts that need to be carefully considered by the trial court before delivering a judgment. Regarding the plea of alibi, it is based on the specific circumstances of the case and is inherently subjective.
It is an undisputed fact that the case relies heavily on the statements or evidence of the eyewitnesses. However, when the eyewitnesses fail to identify the accused in court, it undermines the very foundation of the case.
In Dharma v. State of Haryana, (2023) 10 SCC 229, the Supreme Court held that if an accused is not identified by eyewitnesses, they cannot be held guilty. In paragraph 11 the court expressed that:
Therefore, this is a case where the eyewitness has not identified both the accused in the court. In the circumstances, the appellants could not have been convicted in the absence of their identification by the eyewitness before the court.
You should promptly file an appeal under Section 415 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. The appellate court is likely to set aside the conviction on the sole ground that the accused not identified by eyewitness. Their involvement in the commission of the offense remains doubtful, and they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Related