The Supreme Court will hear on July 30, 2021, an appeal against conviction and sentence of life term imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code by a trio, in a physical court after more than a year since the starting of COVID19 pandemic.
A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat in its order dated July 2, has noted, “the parties have voluntarily agreed to appear in Court physically and argue the matter on 30.07.2021.” Following which the Court has list the matter to heard in a physical court.
The Supreme Court has been functioning via video conferencing since March 23, 2020 due to onset of the COVID19 pandemic. And has been since working virtually. In between it has tried to resume hearings via hybrid mode (in this lawyer has a choice to either appear virtually or physically before the court) but the second wave of Coronavirus pandemic forced it to continue via virtual mode which is continuing still.
However, in a appeal filed by three life term murder convicts, one Indrapal Singh has already get remission by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh after he has undergone 17 years of imprisonment. Second convict Ram Pal Singh has been released on bail on March 16, 2020. While the third one Surender Pal Singh is serving his life term sentence in jail.
The appeal has been filed against the conviction order by the trial court passed in year 1998, in the FIR of 1995 and which was affirmed by the High Court vide its order dated 31.07.2018. All three of them accused and convicted for murdering three with their rifle and guns.
The High Court had observed, “We are conscious of the fact that in a case of criminal liability, an accused cannot be punished unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. An accused has a profound right not to be convicted for an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Law does not permit a Court to convict an accused merely on suspicion or on the basis of preponderance of probability. However, the principle of proof beyond doubt cannot be stretched to improbability or impossibility. Whenever it is held that evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt beyond doubt, any individual person with ingenious mind can always question and there is nothing which can convince everybody. Here requirement is that reasonableness of a doubt must be a practical one and not on an abstract theoretical hypothesis. Reasonableness is a virtue that forms as a mean between excessive caution and excessive indifference to a doubt.”
Also Read: Delhi High Court to hear liquor traders’ plea for release of New Excise Policy in public domain
The appellants in their appeal questioned the lapses on the part of the investigation officer and minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses. But the Court thrown out their version and held, “suffice is to mention that minor lapses on the part of I.O. will not help accused-appellants in any manner, unless such lapses affect core of prosecution. Even the factum whether FIR was actually scribed by Shyam Babu or not, in our view, per se will not render prosecution case, incredible or unbelievable, for the reason that an ghastly and henious act causing death of three persons at the particular point of time would have affected mental condition of persons present there.”
“So long as we do not find any material defect in FIR version, which is substantially corroborated by eye- witnesses and other material on record, merely for the reason that there was some lapses on the part of I.O., prosecution story cannot be thrown away,” held by the High Court while affirming the Conviction.
