1977 (3) TMI 157 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Convictions, Emphasizes Scrutiny on Trial Court Reasons in Appeal Cases

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The appellants were acquitted of all charges, emphasizing the importance ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 302/120B IPC for murder.2. Conviction under Section 364 IPC for abduction.3. Reliability of witness testimonies.4. Admissibility of extra-judicial confessions.5. High Court's approach in overturning acquittal.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 302/120B IPC for Murder:The High Court convicted the appellants under Section 302/120B IPC, relying heavily on the testimony of Puran Singh (PW 3) and the extra-judicial confessions of accused Shiv Narain and Harbhajan Singh before R.K. Kapur (PW 41). However, the Sessions Judge had previously acquitted the accused, finding Puran Singh's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence. The High Court did not adequately address the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving Puran Singh's testimony. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reliance on Puran Singh's testimony was misplaced, given the significant infirmities pointed out by the Sessions Judge.2. Conviction under Section 364 IPC for Abduction:The High Court also convicted the appellants under Section 364 IPC for the abduction of Shingara Singh, Hardip Singh, and Kartar Singh. This conviction was primarily based on the testimony of Harnam Singh (PW 5). The Sessions Judge had disbelieved Harnam Singh's testimony, noting his failure to report the abduction to the police or inform the relatives of the deceased. The High Court, however, accepted Harnam Singh's testimony without adequately addressing the discrepancies highlighted by the Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in accepting Harnam Singh's testimony without sufficient corroboration.3. Reliability of Witness Testimonies:The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of Puran Singh (PW 3), Harnam Singh (PW 5), and other witnesses. The Sessions Judge had found significant discrepancies in the testimonies of these witnesses, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The High Court, however, did not adequately address these discrepancies and instead relied on the same testimonies to convict the appellants. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of closely examining the reasons given by the trial court for disbelieving the witnesses before overturning an acquittal.4. Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions:The High Court admitted the extra-judicial confessions of Shiv Narain and Harbhajan Singh, finding no inducement, threat, or promise from R.K. Kapur (PW 41). However, the Supreme Court found that the confessions were tainted by inducement, given the repeated interrogations and the statements made by Mr. Kapur suggesting that the accused should tell the truth to receive support. The Supreme Court held that these confessions were inadmissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.5. High Court's Approach in Overturning Acquittal:The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not adequately considering the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused. The High Court had focused on its own reasons for convicting the appellants without addressing the trial court's findings. The Supreme Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must demonstrate the unworthiness of the trial court's conclusions based on the evidence on record. The High Court's failure to do so was a significant infirmity in its judgment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court. The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and those in detention were ordered to be released forthwith, while those on bail were discharged from their bail bonds. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of closely examining the trial court's reasons for acquittal in appeals against acquittal and found that the High Court had failed to adhere to this principle.