2022 (1) TMI 1396 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Acquits Accused, Cites Insufficient Evidence; Overturns HC's Order for Perjury Proceedings Against Appellant.

The SC upheld the HC's decision to acquit all Accused, agreeing that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies ... Reversal of judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast-Track Court - acquittal of accused - HELD THAT:- In NEPAL SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [2009 (4) TMI 981 - SUPREME COURT], this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court which had set aside the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court and restored the judgment of the trial court acquitting the Accused on reappreciation of the evidence. PW-7, who is the informant in his evidence, has resiled from what he had initially stated to the Police even though he claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. It has been established that Chandra Bhanu Prasad, though a resident of the locality, was not present during the occurrence of the incident. Similarly, the presence of Dhappu Ram and Fantush Mandal is doubted by PW-8. In fact, the Investigating Officer/PW-9 has also corroborated the fact that PW-7 had not stated anything about the bombs being thrown by Mahendra Ram, Upendra Ram and that there was no mention of Dhappu Ram. In the deposition of PW-3, there has been no mention of Dhappu Ram, Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram as also in the evidence of PW-2. Further, PW-4 who is an advocate and who is said to have prepared the written report, has not been categorical in his evidence. It is denied by PW-8 who is also an advocate and an attesting witness to the written report, that the bomb was thrown at the informant's shop and that it hit the informant's father who died as a result of the same. It is observed that the Fast Track Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 4 and 7 in their proper perspective and has further failed to recognise the fact that PW-7/the Appellant herein did not at all support the case of the prosecution although he was the informant and hence, erroneously convicted the Accused and sentenced two of them with death penalty and the third Accused with imprisonment for life. The High Court was, therefore, justified in reversing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Fast-Track Court. The High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and sentencing the two of the Accused, namely Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram with death penalty and imposing Upendra Ram to undergo life imprisonment and instead acquitting all the Accused - having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases and bearing in mind that there were two deaths in the incident that occurred on 10th March, 2005 which has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, we set aside only that portion of the impugned judgment and order directing the trial court to initiate proceedings of perjury against the Appellant herein. Appeal allowed in part. Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast-Track Court, thereby acquitting all the Accused.2. Whether the judgment of the High Court calls for any interference or modification by the Supreme Court.3. What order should be passed regarding the initiation of perjury proceedings against the Appellant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of High Court in Reversing the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence:The Fast Track Court convicted the Respondents based on the prosecution's claim that on 10th March 2005, the Accused hurled bombs resulting in the deaths of Chhote Lal Mahto and O.P. Verma. The High Court, however, found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The High Court noted that the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-7 (the informant), resiled from their initial statements. The High Court observed that the Fast Track Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and overlooked the contradictions and delays in the statements of the witnesses. The High Court emphasized the principle of 'presumed innocent till proved guilty' and found that the prosecution's case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court acquitted all the Accused.2. Need for Interference or Modification by the Supreme Court:The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the reasoning of the High Court. It noted that the High Court provided categorical reasons for reversing the judgment of the Fast Track Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Fast Track Court did not properly appreciate the evidence, particularly the inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses like PW-7. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment of acquittal.3. Order Regarding Initiation of Perjury Proceedings Against the Appellant:The High Court had directed the trial court to initiate perjury proceedings against the Appellant (PW-7) for not supporting the prosecution case during the trial. However, the Supreme Court, considering the facts and circumstances, including the occurrence of two deaths, decided to set aside this portion of the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the rest of the High Court's judgment and order of acquittal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit all the Accused, finding that the prosecution's case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the Appellant, thereby allowing the appeals in part.