Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently acquitted an individual convicted under Section 304 of the IPC by the Madras High Court in a case related to a fatal assault. The apex court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involved an altercation over wage demands resulting in the victim’s death, allegedly due to an attack by the appellant with a rubber stick.

Arguments of Both Sides:  

The prosecution relied on the appellant’s abscondence for over three years as evidence of guilt. However, the court dismissed this, emphasizing that abscondence alone cannot prove guilt. The appellant contended that he was possibly framed, highlighting the victim’s alcohol influence and a fall from a tree as possible causes of death.

The Sessions judge initially convicted the appellant for murder, while the High Court altered the charge to Section 304-Part II of the IPC. However, the Supreme Court, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the victim likely fell from a tree, and the prosecution’s version was unreliable.

Court’s Judgement:  

The Supreme Court observed that material witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, highlighting the absence of crucial testimonies despite their presence during the incident. Additionally, the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical documents to substantiate the victim’s injuries weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court stressed that the delay in filing the FIR must be assessed concerning other circumstances, and if unexplained, it might corrode the prosecution’s credibility. Given the lack of compelling evidence and inconsistencies, the Court acquitted the appellant, considering the possibility of his false implication.