Summary
The Court upheld the High Court’s alteration of two accused persons’ murder convictions to culpable homicide under section 304 Part I read with section 34, with seven years’ imprisonment, and its acquittal of the other two. Failure to investigate the accused persons’ cross-FIR and suppression of their injury reports caused serious prejudice and unanswered doubt. The prosecution could not cure those deficiencies by relying on the accused persons’ failure to raise a defence in their section 313 statements.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s alteration of the convictions and acquittals warranted interference despite the uninvestigated cross-FIR and suppressed injury reports.
- How the defence burden differs from the prosecution’s obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Held
- The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; the accused need only establish the probability of a defence. The burden for a plea of self-defence is a preponderance of probability, rather than the prosecution’s higher standard. (¶¶ 9, 13)
- Failure to raise a defence in an examination under section 313 does not relieve the prosecution of its burden. Weakness in the defence cannot supply missing proof or answer material doubts in the prosecution’s case. (¶ 10)
- The accused persons’ cross-FIR was admitted but not investigated, and their hospitalisation was established while their injury reports were withheld without explanation. Together these matters created unanswered doubts and serious prejudice; this was more than merely defective investigation. (¶¶ 8, 11–15)
- Fairness extends through investigation, trial and sentencing. The prosecution must impartially place relevant material before the court rather than conceal evidence needed for a just decision. (¶ 12)
- The evidence supported the High Court’s benefit of doubt to accused 3 and 4, and no ground was shown for interfering with the High Court’s overall disposition. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Complainant’s and State’s appeals dismissed. High Court judgment retained: accused 1 and 2 convicted under section 304 Part I read with section 34 and sentenced to seven years; accused 3 and 4 acquitted.