Acquittal upheld as unreliable accomplice and inconsistent Section 164 statements leave prosecution's case fatally weak and guilt unproven

The SC dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding the prosecution's case fatally weakened by an unreliable accomplice witness whose inconsistent statements lacked corroboration. The trial court's reliance on the witness's Section 164 statement was held improper because such statements are not substantive evidence. Given the witness's contradictions before and after charge framing and absence of independent proof linking the respondent to the alleged secret file, the Court found guilt unproven beyond reasonable doubt. The SC declined to decide on the interpretation of Section 5(2) of the Act.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Section 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act - Corroboration of evidence of accomplice witness - Reliability of witness Aggarwal's testimony - Interpretation of Section 5(2) of the Act.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the State of Delhi against the Punjab High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent of an offence under Section 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act. The High Court set aside the conviction based on the lack of corroboration of the evidence of witness Aggarwal, who was considered an accomplice. The prosecution's case involved the respondent obtaining a secret file containing government office notings related to illegal imports, with Aggarwal typing copies of the file. The crucial issue revolved around the reliability of Aggarwal's testimony, as his cross-examination revealed inconsistencies and unreliability, casting doubt on his credibility as a witness. The Additional Sessions Judge believed Aggarwal's examination-in-chief but noted inconsistencies in his subsequent statements, suggesting he had been influenced by the respondent. The Judge's reliance on Aggarwal's statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code was deemed erroneous by the Supreme Court, as such statements are not substantive evidence. The Court concluded that Aggarwal's varying statements in cross-examination before and after the charge framing rendered him an untrustworthy witness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Court declined to interpret Section 5(2) of the Act, focusing instead on the issue of witness credibility. Despite the prosecution's reliance on Aggarwal's testimony to establish the respondent's guilt, the Court found Aggarwal's inconsistent statements and unreliability undermined the case against the respondent. The Court highlighted the dangers of relying on unreliable witness testimony, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence to support the charges. The judgment underscored the fundamental principle that conviction must rest on credible and consistent evidence, which was lacking in this case due to Aggarwal's unreliable testimony. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Punjab High Court's acquittal of the respondent based on the insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

---