Skip to content

MTP Muhammed Faisal @ Faisal v. Inspector of Police

  • Order

Criminal Justice System – Pliable and prevaricating witnesses question the credibility of the criminal judicial system and test the skill of adjudicators and stretch their patience to breaking point. An inept prosecution and an equally abject defense does not serve the cause of justice delivery; which problems are at times compounded by an indifferent Court. The trial of a seemingly open and shut case, of a murder committed in the open and in public view has been complicated by witnesses of the aforementioned category. An enquiry into whether it is on purpose or on threat or purchase, obviously is beyond our ken. But all the same, we have to sift the grain from the chaff and find out the truth as discernible from the evidence on record.

Penal Code, 1860 – S. 302 – the knife was recovered from the residential property belonging to the accused himself which cannot be said to be an open place easily accessible to the public or even the police nor would it be visible to the public eye.

Penal Code, 1860 – S. 302 – The recovery of the weapon and blood stained shirt has been effected through the confession statement of the accused Sufficient evidence to convict the accused for the offences charged.

Based on the testimony in chief examination of the eye witnesses PW1 and PW2 as corroborated by Ext.P11 wound certificate of PW1, Ext. P4 recovery of the weapon, Ext.P3 recovery of the shirt of the accused, Ext.P15 property list, Ext.P16 forwarding note and the scientific evidence provided by the chemical analysis report, Ext.P20, we find the accused guilty. Even if we eschew the evidence of PW1& PW2 to the extent they inculpate the accused as to the infliction of injury, we find an unbroken chain of circumstances unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused. The recoveries and scientific evidence offer corroboration to the prosecution case as first spoken of by PW1 and PW2. The recovery of the weapon and blood stained shirt has been effected through the confession statement of the accused. We find sufficient evidence to convict the accused for the offences charged and we affirm the sentence passed. We see serious indifference, if not negligence on the part of the Addl.Sessions Judge I who tried the case and a copy of this judgment shall be sent to him as a word of caution. We dismiss the appeal. We notice that the appellant/accused was set at large by suspending the sentence passed by the trial court by order dt.29.06.2017. The bail bonds executed by the accused appellant would stand cancelled and he shall surrender before the Addl.Sessions Judge I, Kasaragod forthwith.

Citations : 2021 (4) KCC 201