1995 (2) TMI 445 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns conviction citing witness discrepancies

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the judgment under TADA and Arms Act due to discrepancies in witness depositions, lack of independent witness ... Reliability of prosecution evidence - corroboration by independent witness - discrepancies in prosecution witnesses - search and seizure by police - complainant conducting investigation - impartiality of investigation - unsafe conviction set asideReliability of prosecution evidence - corroboration by independent witness - discrepancies in prosecution witnesses - Conviction sustainable in face of contradictory police testimony and absence of independent corroboration - HELD THAT: - The Court found material discrepancies between the two police witnesses regarding the place from which the pistol was recovered and the number of cartridges retrieved. Although police witnesses are not to be rejected as a rule, the absence of any independent witness when such evidence could readily have been procured weakens the prosecution case. The contradictions, when uncorroborated, undermine confidence in the reliability of the prosecution's account of search and seizure and render the conviction unsafe. [Paras 2, 3, 4]The contradictions in police evidence, coupled with lack of independent corroboration, rendered the prosecution case unreliable and the conviction could not be sustained.Search and seizure by police - complainant conducting investigation - impartiality of investigation - Propriety of investigation where the complainant (arresting officer) conducted subsequent investigation and examined witnesses - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the head constable who effected the arrest and lodged the complaint proceeded to carry out the investigation and examine witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice is objectionable because it creates a perception and occasion for suspecting lack of fair and impartial investigation. Investigation ought not to be conducted by the complainant where that may compromise impartiality. [Paras 4]Investigation conducted by the complainant was improper and contributed to the conclusion that the proceedings were unsafe.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence are set aside because the prosecution case was rendered unreliable by material discrepancies in police testimony, absence of independent corroboration, and the impropriety of the complainant conducting the investigation. Issues involved: Appeal against judgment u/s 6(1) of TADA and Section 25 of Arms Act based on recovery of pistol and cartridges without valid license, discrepancies in witness depositions, lack of independent witness corroboration, and fairness of investigation process.Issue 1 - Recovery of Pistol and Cartridges:The appellant was tried u/s 6(1) of TADA and Section 25 of Arms Act based on the recovery of a country-made pistol and live cartridges from his person without a valid license. The police party intercepted the accused on a village road and recovered the items, leading to the initiation of the case.Issue 2 - Discrepancies in Witness Depositions:Discrepancies arose in the witness depositions regarding the location of recovery of the pistol and the number of cartridges found on the accused. While PW-2 stated the pistol was recovered from the right side, PW-3 mentioned the left side, and there was a discrepancy in the number of cartridges recovered. The judge, however, deemed these discrepancies immaterial and upheld the police personnel's depositions.Issue 3 - Lack of Independent Witness Corroboration:The defense contended that no independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the prosecution's case, despite the presence of villagers during the apprehension of the accused. The defense argued that the rule of prudence necessitates corroboration by independent witnesses to enhance the prosecution's credibility.Issue 4 - Fairness of Investigation Process:A disturbing feature noted was that the head constable who arrested the accused also initiated the case, conducted the investigation, and examined witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. This raised concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation process, as the complainant should not have been involved in the investigation.Judgment:After considering the discrepancies in witness depositions, lack of independent witness corroboration, and the fairness of the investigation process, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.