2007 (9) TMI 641 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Confirms Acquittal Due to Witness Discrepancies and Doubts About Deceased Identity, Dismissing State's Appeal.

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld the acquittal of the accused by the Allahabad High Court (HC) in a case involving charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 of ... Murder - High Court reversed the Order of Conviction passed by the learned trial Court - Offences punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Act') - HELD THAT:- The time of lodging the FIR was found to be suspicious by the High Court in view of several contradictory statements made by PW-l. The investigating officer also admitted in his cross examination that the seals of the two containers in which blood stained earth and samples had been kept were found to be tampered with. The investigating officer had admitted that he had recorded the statement of Chhotey Lal (PW-4) on 31.8.1978 as this witness was not available earlier. The case diary interestingly was not produced during trial by the investigating officer. The High Court found that in the absence of any definite material to prove that the dead body was that of the deceased, the prosecution version was rendered to that extent, doubtful. Since PW-4 resiled from his statement made earlier, the High Court examined the evidence of PW-l in detail. So far as Paramjeet (PW-7) is concerned, his evidence was also found to be not reliable because he appeared to have been tutored. He was aged about 7-8 years when he gave the statement on 11.7.1980. The incident had occurred on 24.08.1978, i.e. nearly two years before his deposition. That means that he was about 5-6 years old at the time of incident. The High Court, with reference to his evidence found that the testimony he gave in court was the result of tutoring. In these circumstances, the High Court concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the accusation. Though learned counsel for the State submitted that the circumstances highlighted by the prosecution were sufficient to record conviction, we find that the High Court has examined all the relevant aspects in detail and has recorded the judgment of acquittal. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [1973 (8) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT], Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana [2000 (4) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT]. In the instant case, we find that the reasons indicated by the High Court for recording the order of acquittal do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Issues:Challenge to the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201, IPC.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction Challenge:The appeal challenged the conviction of the respondents under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC by the Allahabad High Court. The prosecution's case narrated the events leading to the murder of the deceased, allegedly in retaliation for another murder. The body of the victim was discovered after a month, leading to doubts about its identity. The accused pleaded innocence, questioning the autopsy report and the reliability of witnesses.2. Prosecution's Stand:The State contended that the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, despite their claims of innocence. The Trial Court had found the accused guilty based on the available evidence.3. High Court Analysis:The High Court scrutinized the material on record and the Trial Court's conclusions. It noted discrepancies in witness testimonies, including contradictions in the informant's statements regarding the discovery of the body and the timing of reporting the incident. The High Court raised doubts about the identity of the deceased and the conduct of key witnesses.4. Witness Testimonies:The High Court highlighted the unreliability of witness testimonies, especially that of the informant and a child witness. The child witness's testimony was deemed unreliable due to age and potential coaching, casting further doubt on the prosecution's case.5. Judgment of Acquittal:Despite the State's arguments for conviction, the High Court acquitted the accused based on the inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of not interfering with acquittals unless substantial reasons exist. Citing previous judgments, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of acquittal by the High Court, emphasizing the importance of preventing miscarriages of justice and the need for compelling reasons to overturn acquittals. The detailed analysis highlighted the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the lack of concrete evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused despite the State's arguments for conviction.