Police officers acquitted in 1987 murder case as prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

SC dismissed appeal against acquittal in murder case from 1987. Three eye-witnesses could not identify accused policemen despite claiming police action occurred. Deceased died from .12 bore gunshot, not from service rifles issued to accused. Though rifle cartridge empties were found at scene, prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances proving accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Trial court properly extended benefit of doubt to accused. HC's cryptic judgment did not warrant remand given case age and adequate record for merit assessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Rejection of the application seeking leave to appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code.
3. Evaluation of evidence and findings of the trial court.
4. High Court's observations on the trial court's judgment.
5. Submissions by the appellant and respondent.
6. Analysis of the Supreme Court.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The High Court condoned the delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2011 passed by the trial court.

2. Rejection of the Application Seeking Leave to Appeal u/s 378(3) of the Code:
The High Court rejected the application seeking leave to appeal and dismissed the Government Appeal accordingly.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings of the Trial Court:
The trial court found the testimony of PW-3 and PW-6 inconsequential as they did not identify the accused. PW-15 was found unreliable due to delayed disclosure and identical affidavits prepared by a lawyer. The trial court noted discrepancies in the ballistic evidence and the autopsy report, which indicated the gunshot injury was from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle. The trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were the ones who attacked the deceased.

4. High Court's Observations on the Trial Court's Judgment:
The High Court noted that the prosecution case rested on three eye-witnesses' accounts, but PW-3 and PW-6 could not identify the policemen, and PW-15 was found unreliable. The medical evidence indicated the deceased died due to gun-shot injuries fired from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle. Hence, granting leave to appeal would be futile.

5. Submissions by the Appellant and Respondent:
The appellant argued that the presence of the accused at the scene was confirmed by eye witnesses and circumstances, and the trial court's verdict was perverse. The respondent countered that the deceased died from a .12 bore gunshot, not a rifle, and some empty cartridges did not match the rifles of the accused, indicating someone else's presence.

6. Analysis of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's judgment was cryptic but decided not to remit the matter back, considering the long pendency. The Court found no infirmity in the trial court's view that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 were not helpful, and PW-15 was unreliable. The proven circumstances did not conclusively indicate the accused's guilt. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

---