[ad_1]
Just because the independent witnesses were not cross-examined cannot be a reason to doubt the veracity of the eyewitnesses, the Bombay High Court recently noted during the dismissal of the appeal to challenge the conviction of four accused in a 2012 murder case in Satara district.
The bench of Justice Revati Mohit Dhere and Judge Sharmila U Deshmukh on 19 June delivered a judgment in the criminal cases filed by Sagar Haribu Nanaware, Praveen alias Sonia Sanjay Algod, Amol Vital Algod and Sanjay Jaisingh Algod in appeal of the judgment of 31 December 2012 against the Court Sessions which convicted them of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
As per the allegation, on the morning of 12 March 2012, the victim, Shantaram, was sitting near Anganwadi. Two of the accused, Sagar and Praveen, arrive at the scene on a motorbike and lunge on Shantaram’s left leg, injuring him. When Shantaram bent down, Amol and Sanjay came running and urged Sagar and Praveen not to leave Shantaram and told them to kill him.
After that, Sagar stabs Shantaram twice in the ribs with a knife. At this point, Shantaram shouted for help and witnesses rushed towards him. The accused fled the scene. Shantaram was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries after which the FIR was registered at Valtan Police Station by Shantaram’s brother.
The defendants said that the prosecution could not prove the case against them because although there were houses near the scene of the accident, no independent witnesses were questioned by the prosecution.
The court noted that “it is entirely possible that, in view of the manner in which the deceased was quickly brought to hospital, other persons may not have witnessed the accident.”
She continued, “In our opinion, the eyewitness evidence is consistent and convincing, and therefore, the mere failure to cross-examine independent witnesses cannot be a reason to doubt the veracity of the eyewitnesses.”
The court further noted that the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene was normal and that the failure to cross-examine any other independent witness was not “fatal to the prosecution’s case”. It noted that “failure to cross-examine independent witnesses in and of itself may not lead to negative inference against the prosecution.”
The court found that the prosecution proved the defendant’s guilt “without a reasonable doubt.” The Supreme Court rejected the appeals and did not find any defect in the contested ruling and upheld the conviction of the accused and the life sentence issued by the Sessions Court.
[ad_2]
