The Supreme Court held that a hold up in recording the statements of eye-witnesses could not result in the refusal of their testimonies. The bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi held that
if the witnesses felt scared and terrified and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements would stand adequately explained.
In the current matter, the accused of the murder had approached the SC on an appeal. One of the challenges here was the delay in recording the statement made by eye-witnesses as per Sections 161 and 164 of the CPC, respectively, which would be a disaster for the prosecution’s case. It was observed that apart from the testimonies of the two said witnesses, there was nothing else to justify the conviction of the accused.
The State justified the delay by saying that the terror unleashed by the accused was of such a magnitude that the concerned witnesses had fled away in fear. It was only after the appropriate actions had been taken by the investigating authority, including the arrest of the accused, that the witnesses came forward
We offer a wide range of lawyers to cater to all your every legal needs and requirement.
Our team provides you support in managing your legal issue without any additional and hidden charges.
Once you finalise the lawyer, you can proceed with predefined time estimation & pricing.
Dedicated Case Follow-up Manager to assist you in coordination with the Lawyer.