Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeals against acquittal in a shooting case. The High Court had reasonably doubted an asserted eyewitness’s presence and conduct, and the absence of bullet holes in the deceased’s clothes cast doubt on the alleged manner of occurrence. No serious or substantial error warranted interference with the benefit of doubt granted to the accused.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s assessment of the eyewitness and physical evidence justified interference with its acquittal.
Held
- On the particular evidence, the High Court reasonably doubted the advocate eyewitness’s presence at the grazing ground during his usual professional and municipal duties. His decision to go to court to write a complaint rather than first obtain treatment for his injured brother or approach police also supported the credibility concerns. (¶ 5–6)
- Despite a chest-cavity-deep gunshot wound, the doctor found no bullet hole in the clothes sent with the body, and the inquest report recorded none. This discrepancy cast doubt on the prosecution’s account of the time and manner of occurrence and supported the benefit of doubt. (¶ 7)
- The High Court’s acquittal disclosed no serious and substantial error calling for Supreme Court interference. The State’s appeals were dismissed. (¶ 8–9)
Result
State’s appeals dismissed; High Court’s acquittal of the respondents left undisturbed.