1996 (5) TMI 429 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed; acquittal reinstated because prosecution's recovery evidence was contrived, unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt

The SC allowed the appeal, holding the trial court's acquittal should stand. The Court found the prosecution's account of recovery of blood-stained ... Murder - Offence punishable u/s 302, 201, 212, 364, 365 and 397 IPC - recovery of blood-stained clothes and other articles - High Court's Reversal of Acquittal - HELD THAT:- Coming now to the circumstance No. vi, namely, recovery of blood-stained clothes and other articles from the flat of the appellant in the morning of September 9. 1980 some of which were found to contain group `A' blood-which was also the group of the blood of the deceased - we are constrained to say that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard was contrived to sustain the charges levelled against the appellant. Admittedly the flat of the appellant was searched in the night between September 4 and 5, 1980 by the police after breaking open its lock. At that time except a pair of trousers, nothing incriminating was found by the police, much less seized. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that after the flat was searched it was locked again and the keys were kept with none other than the brother-in-law of the appellant the reasons for which we are unable to fathom. Be that as it may, it is also an admitted fact that since then the appellant had no access to his flat till it was searched on September 9, 1980. If inspite of these tell tale circumstances a lot of articles - containing `Group A' blood - was found inside that flat on September 9, 1980 - it only shows that the entire story of search and recovery of the articles is a myth. In this case it was not at all difficult for him to remove the articles allegedly found for he had about 6 days time at his disposal to get the same done with the keys which were with his brother-in-law. However, the reasons given by the trial Court to disbelieve this part of the prosecution case are altogether different. Though the reasons of the trial Court in this regard cannot be said to be improper we need not pursue the matter further, having regard to the conclusions we have drawn from the admitted facts of the case. Even if we proceed on the basis, notwithstanding the finding of the trial Court in this regard, that the above circumstance stands proved it does not further the prosecution case for by itself it does not lead to the only conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offences alleged against him. Thus, we unhesitatingly hold that the reasons given by the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal in favour of the appellant are cogent and convincing and the High Court was not at all justified in disturbing the same by reappraising the evidence. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the prosecution conclusively proved that the appellant committed the murder and removed the dead body to screen himself from legal punishment.2. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal by the Sessions Judge based on reappraisal of evidence.Summary:Issue 1: Prosecution's Proof of Murder and Removal of Dead BodyThe prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant's guilt. The key circumstances included:- The appellant and the deceased were seen together on a scooter on September 2, 1980.- The deceased was seen talking with the appellant in his flat around 1:30 PM on the same day.- On the morning of September 3, 1980, the appellant was seen with a trunk emitting a foul smell, which later contained the deceased's body.- Blood-stained trousers were seized from the appellant's flat.- Diamonds worth Rs. 63,000/- were recovered from the appellant at the time of his arrest.- Articles containing human blood of Group A, matching the deceased's blood group, were found in the appellant's flat.- A piece of string similar to the one used to tie the deceased's body was found in the appellant's flat.The trial court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable, particularly questioning the credibility of witnesses who delayed their statements and the implausibility of the appellant committing the murder in his flat without being noticed by neighbors. The trial court also found the recovery of blood-stained articles on September 9, 1980, suspicious, given that the flat was locked and the keys were with the appellant's brother-in-law.Issue 2: High Court's Reversal of AcquittalThe High Court independently reappraised the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that the High Court failed to address whether the trial court's reasons for acquittal were proper. The Supreme Court emphasized that an appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's findings are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable.The Supreme Court found the trial court's reasons for acquittal cogent and convincing, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses and the suspicious recovery of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in disturbing the acquittal.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the appellant, who was on bail, was discharged from his bail bonds.