After going through the witness testimonies and other materials on record, the Court noted that there was enough to indicate that the attack was perpetrated by mask men and that the incident had lasted for under 2 minutes.
This, the Court opined, cast doubt on the identification made by the eye-witnesses, especially when they gave precise descriptions of the accused, the weapons used and even the apparel worn by them.
The Court opined that the case reeked of deliberate attempts from the commencement of the investigation, to project half-truths and cherry-pick witnesses so as to shape the case in a particular manner.
Such over-zealousness, the Court observed, was par for course when a crime is the byproduct of political rivalries .
“In many a case where the crime is the product of political rivalry, we see an over zealousness on the part of the investigating and prosecuting agency. The cherry-picked witnesses speak with precision on every minute aspect, unmindful of the disbelief it evokes,” the Court said.
The Court also said that caution must be exercised when considering the version of a witness, because however exhaustive or precise it may seem, it is of no avail unless it is also believable and trustworthy.
In the instant case, the Court found that the conspiracy alleged cannot be established and the witnesses had clearly exaggerated in identifying details of the accused and the supposed get-away vehicles.
Further, the Court noted that the vehicles which were seized were also not confirmed by the eye-witnesses or their connection with the accused established.
“The conspiracy is nonsensical and the witnesses are clearly tutored, who go on a tirade of embellishments, about what transpired in a public place in broad daylight, without any of that spoken in the prior statements to the Police. …The witnesses proffered by the prosecution; whose very presence is suspect, speak on the details of the attack, the crime proper and the get-away, in a manner which makes the observations made, impossible of perception, within the short time in which the incident is said to have occurred,” the Court said as it set aside the convictions of the accused and set them at liberty.
Source: Barandbench
