Introduction:
This case involves a criminal appeal heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The appellant, Kamlesh Kumar Rai, challenged his conviction and life sentence for the murder of his wife, Rekha Devi. The trial court found him guilty of fatally shooting her on a train. The appeal focused on the validity of the eyewitness testimony, the nature of the investigation, and the appellant's alibi.
Background:
The case originated from an incident on February 6, 2015, when Rekha Devi was shot dead on a passenger train. The First Information Report (FIR) was filed based on the statement of her 12-year-old son, Manish Kumar (@ Lav Kumar), who, along with his twin brother, was traveling with her. Manish Kumar accused his father, Kamlesh Kumar Rai (the appellant), of the murder. He stated that his parents were estranged and his father killed his mother due to an illicit relationship.
Trial Court Decision:
The trial court found Kamlesh Kumar Rai guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine, and a portion of the fine was directed to be paid to the deceased's sons.
Appeal to the High Court:
Kamlesh Kumar Rai appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable, important evidence was overlooked, and he had an alibi.
Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant's counsel argued several points:
That the eyewitnesses, the victim's sons, were tutored and their testimony contained inconsistencies.
That other passengers present in the train compartment, who were independent witnesses, were not examined.
That the witnesses who claimed to be at the crime scene were relatives of the victim and their presence was doubtful.
That the investigation was improperly conducted by the local police instead of the railway police.
That a key police official involved in recovering evidence was not examined.
That the medical evidence regarding the victim's injuries was inconsistent with the eyewitness account.
That the investigating officer failed to collect crucial bloodstain evidence.
That the appellant was on duty in Jammu at the time of the murder, providing him with an alibi, for which he presented evidence.
State's Arguments:
The state's counsel argued that:
The victim's sons were credible witnesses who directly witnessed the murder.
The presence of the other witnesses was natural and their testimony was valid.
The postmortem report corroborated the allegation that the appellant inflicted the gunshot injuries.
There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision.
High Court's Analysis and Decision:
The High Court examined the evidence and arguments from both sides. It raised concerns about the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, discrepancies in the accounts of witnesses who were present at the scene, and the fact that the police investigation was not conducted by the railway police. The court also considered the appellant's alibi.
The High Court concluded that the prosecution's case had significant shortcomings. The court found that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. It overturned the trial court’s decision, set aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence, and ordered his release.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM5MzcjMjAxNyMxI04=-KjcbZS61CpM=
0 Comments