The Supreme Court will hear an appeal by life-term murder convicts in a physical court.

After more than a year from the commencement of the COVID19 pandemic, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal against a trio’s conviction and sentence of life in prison under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code in a physical court on July 30, 2021.

After a petition has been filed by three life sentence murderers, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh accorded Indrapal Singh remission after he served 17 years in prison. On March 16, 2020, the second convict, Ram Pal Singh, was granted bail. Surender Pal Singh, the third, is currently incarcerated for the rest of his life.The appeal was filed in response to the trial court’s conviction judgement issued in 1998 in the FIR of 1995, which was upheld by the High Court in a ruling dated July 31, 2018. They were all charged with murdering three people with their rifles and firearms, and they’ve all been acquitted.

“We are mindful of the fact that in a case of criminal culpability, an accused cannot be punished unless his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” the High Court said. An accused has a fundamental right not to be convicted of an offence for which the evidence standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not been met. The law forbids a court from convicting an accused based just on suspicion or on the preponderance of evidence. The principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, on the other hand, cannot be carried to the point of improbability or impossibility. When evidence is deemed to be adequate to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, any individual with a sharp mind may always object, and there is nothing that can persuade everyone. The only stipulation is that the reasonableness of a doubt must be based on a practical consideration rather than an abstract theoretical hypothesis. Reasonableness is a virtue that exists in the middle of extreme caution and extreme indifference to uncertainty.”

In their appeal, the appellants questioned the investigation officer’s shortcomings as well as small inconsistencies in witness statements. The Court, however, rejected their version, ruling that “small lapses on the part of I.O. will not benefit accused-appellants in any way, unless such lapses damage the heart of the prosecution.” Even the fact that the FIR was drafted by Shyam Babu or not, in our opinion, will not render the prosecution case unbelievable or unbelievable, because a horrendous and atrocious conduct resulting in the murder of three people at a specific time would have impacted the mental state of those present.

Join us on whatsapp

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s