An SC bench said the evidence for an accidental drowning was more plausible than homicide. NEW DELHI: Observing that the human mind can sometimes act foolishly, especially in the face of unpredictable adversity, Supreme Court has said that such behaviour cannot be the sole basis of conviction and acquitted two men who had been held guilty of killing their friend.They were convicted by trial court and high court because their friend drowned in a river in their presence and instead of trying to rescue him, they left the spot and went to watch a movie, actions which were held as evidence of their culpability.Gujarat high court held that their behaviour was proof that they had killed the friend, and it was not a case of drowning in the river, sentencing them to life imprisonment.Setting aside the order of trial court and high court, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said there was no evidence to prove that it was a case of murder and held that the deceased had drowned accidentally.”The accused are guilty of having fled from the spot and not having attempted to rescue the drowning person by crying out for help. Their conduct of having gone for a movie after witnessing their friend drowning, though reprehensible, cannot be found to be an incriminating circumstance, to establish murder rather than drowning. The hypothesis of innocence is crystal clear, and circumstances indicate an accident and not a premeditated murder,” the bench said.Disagreeing with the findings of the HC, the bench said, “We also have to notice the high court’s presumption that no person who saw his friend drowning would go to a movie or would take the trouble of bringing back empty soda bottles to the shop from where they purchased it. If such a presumption is accepted then it can be presumed that even after a premeditated murder, the accused would not conduct themselves in that manner.””The human mind, as has often been held by this court, is at the same time fickle, manipulative and imaginative and the actions, the result of a deprived or a foolish mindset, especially in the face of adversities, cannot be predicted. The subsequent conduct on which the high court found possible the prosecution story of murder rather than of drowning, in this case we are unable to accept. It is the hypothesis of an accidental drowning that looms large from the evidence led at the trial; more plausible than a homicide,” SC said.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesChallenging their conviction, the accused submitted that they, at worst, could be held guilty of a misadventure which turned fatal for their friend, and there was absolutely no evidence to prove even a homicidal death. They, however, admitted that they fled the scene in panic.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos‘Process Vitiated…’: Bangladesh Links Tarique Rahman’s India Visit To Sheikh Hasina Extradition‘Will Never Be Forgiven’: Amit Shah Slams Sonia Gandhi; BJP Lodges Complaint Over Vande Mataram RowAir India Express Passenger Booked After Pistol Goes Off At Varanasi Airport During Security Check‘Derogatory’: PM Modi’s ‘Dimaagi Naxals’ Remark Triggers Row; Congress, CJP, Left Parties Hit BackActivist Devendra Mahto Stopped From Tiranga March As Jharkhand Student Protest Escalates On I-Day‘Came From The Top’: Mahua Moitra Alleges Late-Night Pressure, Seeks Speaker Om Birla’s InterventionDid Congress Leaders Signal Stop? Viral Vande Mataram Video Sparks Political Firestorm In New DelhiIndia Signs ₹1,577 Crore Drone Deals As Army Powers Up Precision Strikes And Unmanned WarfareAjit Doval Breaks Silence On Operation Sindoor, Reveals PM Modi’s Immediate Response After PahalgamPM Modi From Red Fort: India’s Self-Reliance Push, Semiconductor Boom And Manufacturing Surge123PhotostoriesHollywood couples who chose not to have children: Dolly Parton and Carl Dean to John Cena and Shay ShariatzadehDengue fever is finally coming down, but why can this be the most dangerous phase of the illness? Doctor explainsHow did samosa become an Indian favourite despite not originating in India?Crocodiles survived an era that wiped out the dinosaurs: What makes them such unusual survivors?8 foods that attract insects in your kitchen without you realising itHow to remove Rahu’s negative energy according to your birth date5 things parents should never let others do to their child at a social gatheringInside Karan Kundrra and Tejasswi Prakash’s opulent Dubai home: Large balconies, a private pool and moreVaani Kapoor goes full maximalist in Mayyur Girotra’s Kutch-embroidered suit, leaving us completely obsessedHimanshi Khurana on battling depression, traumatic childhood and breakup with Asim Riaz over religious differences; says ‘I felt I was betraying God’123Hot PicksMartin Luther King JrRajasthan UCCDelhi trafficJharkhand protestEast Coast Railway GDCE recruitmentMP Class 10, 12 timetableIran warKarnataka bandhUP NEET UG counsellingTop TrendingPM ModiCM VijayBengaluru Namma MetroAsish BanerjeeManan KumarVirender Singh BasoyaJP NaddaWeather TomorrowBengaluru RapidoAbhijeet Dipke
NEW DELHI: Observing that the human mind can sometimes act foolishly, especially in the face of unpredictable adversity, Supreme Court has said that such behaviour cannot be the sole basis of conviction and acquitted two men who had been held guilty of killing their friend.They were convicted by trial court and high court because their friend drowned in a river in their presence and instead of trying to rescue him, they left the spot and went to watch a movie, actions which were held as evidence of their culpability.Gujarat high court held that their behaviour was proof that they had killed the friend, and it was not a case of drowning in the river, sentencing them to life imprisonment.Setting aside the order of trial court and high court, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said there was no evidence to prove that it was a case of murder and held that the deceased had drowned accidentally.“The accused are guilty of having fled from the spot and not having attempted to rescue the drowning person by crying out for help. Their conduct of having gone for a movie after witnessing their friend drowning, though reprehensible, cannot be found to be an incriminating circumstance, to establish murder rather than drowning. The hypothesis of innocence is crystal clear, and circumstances indicate an accident and not a premeditated murder,” the bench said.Disagreeing with the findings of the HC, the bench said, “We also have to notice the high court’s presumption that no person who saw his friend drowning would go to a movie or would take the trouble of bringing back empty soda bottles to the shop from where they purchased it. If such a presumption is accepted then it can be presumed that even after a premeditated murder, the accused would not conduct themselves in that manner.““The human mind, as has often been held by this court, is at the same time fickle, manipulative and imaginative and the actions, the result of a deprived or a foolish mindset, especially in the face of adversities, cannot be predicted. The subsequent conduct on which the high court found possible the prosecution story of murder rather than of drowning, in this case we are unable to accept. It is the hypothesis of an accidental drowning that looms large from the evidence led at the trial; more plausible than a homicide,” SC said.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Challenging their conviction, the accused submitted that they, at worst, could be held guilty of a misadventure which turned fatal for their friend, and there was absolutely no evidence to prove even a homicidal death. They, however, admitted that they fled the scene in panic.
