2021 (12) TMI 1452 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Citing Unreliable Witnesses and Misapplication of Sections 378 and 384 CrPC

The SC allowed the appeals, acquitting the accused of murder charges after the HC's life convictions were found unsustainable. The SC rejected key ... Murder - Acquitting two young men Accused of murdering a police officer, overturned by the High Court convicting them for life - HELD THAT:- On considering the evidence of PW-7, a shoe shop owner, it gives its cogent reasoning for its non-acceptance. The previous bill and the relevant bill had a difference of about 8 months in between and this witness has not seen who has purchased the chappals marked as M.O. 8 from his shop. Similarly, PW-20 who was running an STD booth could not convince the trial court as he could not say that the Accused had made calls from his booth. On motive, it was correctly analysed that there was nothing to implicate the Accused with motive to murder the deceased. PW-1 was the sterling witness of the prosecution. Certainly, he had an axe to grind against the Accused who had given a complaint against him. He was facing a departmental enquiry and suspension. It is too strange that he could be a chance witness. His evidence was thoroughly analysed by the trial court including the distance between his place of work and his residence. He did not use his wireless which was not in operation and went to the police station to give an oral complaint the first time but the same was not registered. PW-25 was known to him and it is surprising as to why no attempt was made to save the deceased immediately by taking him to the nursing home which was 50 meters away as a normal human conduct. There are many contradictions between the statements made by PW-1 and PW-2. PW-2 was also seen along with PW-1. He was another eye witness. He was a duty constable. The trial court rightly doubted his presence as well. Once again, even this witness has not given any complaint. We are dealing with the deposition of a police officer who is expected to know his duty. While PW-2 did not make a complaint but went on to do his duty, PW-1 did not attend to his duty thereafter or informed the police station in which he was posted. Though, PW-2 has stated that Accused made an attempt to attack him by throwing one of the material objects, even the High Court has disbelieved that. The said material object was recovered from some other place as could be seen from the recovery memo, despite the fact that it was nobody's case that the Accused retrieved the same and kept it with them while being chased. PW-25 is the doctor who is well known to PW-1. While PW-1 deposed that he did not actually accompany the deceased, PW-25 did make a statement that both the police and public admitted the deceased - On a reading of the evidence of PW-25, there was not found existence of dying declaration in it. The defence also examined one witness. This witness is a Government doctor being an expert in the field of surgery. He had clearly deposed that it would be impossible for the deceased to be conscious after suffering injuries as mentioned in Exhibit P-38, which is intestines coming out. The trial court correctly considered this evidence. Reasoning of the High Court - HELD THAT:- The dying declaration was put forth by the prosecution through the mouth of said three witnesses. As we find, that the evidence let in by them was found to not be trustworthy, there cannot be any dying declaration either in fact or in law. The High Court also did not consider the basis upon which the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 25 could be accepted and as to how the various reasons given by the trial court are not acceptable especially when it did not consider the evidence of the other witnesses. It rendered a conviction on mere surmise, even though an inference can never be the basis of a conviction when the testimony of a witness is not believed on cogent reasoning - the alleged occurrence was said to have happened at about 5 p.m. on a busy road with heavy traffic and even the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 suggests that there were about 1000 persons. Except the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, there was no other evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The High Court did not undertake the exercise as mandated Under Section 378 read with Section 384 Code of Criminal Procedure in reversing the reasoned decision rendered by the trial court. Thus, the appeals are accordingly allowed. Issues Involved:1. Acquittal by the Court of Sessions and subsequent conviction by the High Court.2. Credibility of witness testimonies, particularly PW-1 and PW-2.3. Reliability of the dying declaration.4. Evaluation of evidence by the trial court versus the High Court.5. Legal principles governing appeals against acquittal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Acquittal by the Court of Sessions and Subsequent Conviction by the High Court:The Court of Sessions acquitted the accused based on a thorough examination of evidence, but the High Court overturned this decision, convicting them for life. The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's approach and found it lacking in a detailed examination of the trial court's reasoning. The High Court's judgment was deemed to have been rendered without adequate discussion and was based on a mere surmise rather than concrete evidence.2. Credibility of Witness Testimonies, Particularly PW-1 and PW-2:The trial court doubted the credibility of PW-1 and PW-2, noting significant discrepancies in their testimonies. PW-1, a police officer facing departmental proceedings initiated by the accused, was considered an unreliable chance witness. The trial court highlighted that PW-1 did not use his wireless radio to report the incident immediately and failed to accompany the deceased to the hospital. Similarly, PW-2's presence and actions were also questioned, with the trial court noting contradictions between his court testimony and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Reliability of the Dying Declaration:The High Court relied heavily on the dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased. However, the trial court found no substantial evidence supporting the existence of such a declaration. PW-25, the doctor who treated the deceased and was known to PW-1, admitted that the statement implicating the accused was introduced at the insistence of the police. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the dying declaration was not credible.4. Evaluation of Evidence by the Trial Court versus the High Court:The trial court's evaluation was detailed and exhaustive, considering the testimonies of all witnesses, including those who turned hostile. It found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to convict the accused. In contrast, the High Court's assessment was criticized for being cursory and not addressing the trial court's detailed reasoning. The Supreme Court emphasized that an appellate court must undertake a deeper scrutiny of the evidence when reversing an acquittal.5. Legal Principles Governing Appeals Against Acquittal:The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal, and the appellate court must provide a detailed rationale for overturning such a decision. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including *Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh* and *Babu v. State of Kerala*, to underline the necessity of a thorough reappraisal of evidence by the appellate court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately justify its reversal of the trial court's acquittal. The evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-25, was deemed unreliable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's conviction and reinstating the trial court's acquittal.