The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, raised concerns over the credibility of a key witness in a murder case, primarily due to the delayed recording of testimony. The witness came forward a year after the incident, claiming to have seen the accused fleeing after the crime. The court noted that the witness's delay and lack of concrete evidence, such as identifying the accused's vehicle or specific details, weakened the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the absence of any immediate identification or motive from the complainant added to the court’s skepticism.
Doubts Over Witness Testimony Due to Delay
The case revolved around the murder of the complainant’s father, who was attacked while sleeping at home. A man, considered a "star witness," claimed to have seen the attackers fleeing. However, his testimony came one year after the incident, casting doubts on its authenticity. The court highlighted that no individuals were named in the initial FIR, and no suspicion was raised immediately. The long delay in reporting this crucial evidence led the court to question its credibility.
Court’s Observation on Lack of Direct Evidence
The court further emphasized that the witness provided no specific details about the accused, such as identifying their motorcycle, and there were no direct eyewitnesses to the murder. The identity of the attackers was not disclosed during the initial investigation, and the complainant did not express any suspicion or motive, further weakening the prosecution's case. The court underlined that the reliance on circumstantial evidence, especially given the delayed testimony, left room for serious doubt.
Bail Granted in Light of Weak Prosecution Case
Considering the lack of direct evidence, the long delay in crucial testimony, and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the court granted bail to the accused. It observed that the prosecution’s case appeared weak, particularly since the alleged motive—revenge for a past killing in 2012—was speculative and distant in time. The decision underscores the importance of timely and concrete evidence in criminal investigations and highlights the court's cautious approach toward witness credibility in delayed testimonies.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.