Sec.302 - Accused Vagabond - Motive Not proved - Material Witness not examined - another witness turned Hostile - in this circumstance mens rea is as important as the evidence to prove the occurrence - No one kill another for a Beedi at the stake of serious punishment = In the charge sheet, Hemla Naik was described as a victim eye-witness. When such an important witness was available, failure on the part of the prosecution to examine him would lead to an adverse inference referable to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Investigating Officer did not even mention the factors that prevented or disabled them from examining L.W.4 as a prosecution witness. the failure to examine a material witness by the prosecution would certainly weaken its case. More over, P.W.4 who is said to be another eye-witness has turned hostile. In any criminal prosecution, mens rea is as important as the evidence to prove the occurrence. Hardly, there exists any standard in this behalf. A small factor can be sufficient, a provocation for one to commit an offence, whereas the same would not matter for another. Even if the attitude or conduct of a person with utmost self-respect is treated as standard, it is impossible to imagine that one would kill a person, on the sole ground that such a person did not accede to the request to give a beedi. Such a thing cannot at all constitute motive, even for a short tempered person, to commit a serious offence running the risk of being imposed punishment of the highest order. It is rather unfortunate that the appellant, who according to the prosecution itself, was a vagabond, was implicated in the murder of an unknown rag picker and the trial Court has convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.302 - Accused Vagabond - Motive Not proved - Material Witness not examined - another witness turned Hostile - in this circumstance mens rea is as important as the evidence
to prove the occurrence - No one kill another for a Beedi at the stake of serious punishment =

In the charge sheet,
Hemla Naik was described as a victim eye-witness.
When such an important witness was available, failure on
the part of the prosecution to examine him would lead to an adverse inference
referable to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Investigating Officer
did not even mention the factors that prevented or disabled them from examining
L.W.4 as a prosecution witness. the failure to examine a material witness by
the prosecution would certainly weaken its case.

More over, P.W.4 who is said to be another
eye-witness has turned hostile.
In any criminal prosecution, mens rea is as important as the evidence
to prove the occurrence.  
Hardly, there exists any standard in this behalf.
 A
small factor can be sufficient, a provocation for one to commit an offence,
whereas the same would not matter for another.
 Even if the attitude or conduct
of a person with utmost self-respect is treated as standard, it is impossible to
imagine that one would kill a person, on the sole ground that such a person did
not accede to the request to give a beedi.
Such a thing cannot at all constitute
motive, even for a short tempered person, to commit a serious offence running
the risk of being imposed punishment of the highest order.
It is rather
unfortunate that the appellant, who according to the prosecution itself, was a
vagabond, was implicated in the murder of an unknown rag picker and the trial
Court has convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life.
 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS