2019 (6) TMI 108 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction overturned due to lack of evidence and witness contradictions. Appellant acquitted under various sections.

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant-accused No.1 under Sections 302, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 25(c) of the ... Acquittal of Offence - Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - dispute over the enjoinment of the road in Survey No.95 of Dhemda Village belonging to accused No.1. Complainant-Somabhai Rupabhai (PW-3) filed a civil suit in Regular Suit No.131 of 1997 for the land measuring four acres and twenty-two guntas in the Court of Civil Judge, Modasa against accused Nos.1 and 3 - HELD THAT:- Case of prosecution is that as per disclosure statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, a rifle was recovered from the house of accused No.1 which has a single barrel. Similarly, as pointed out earlier in post-mortem certificate (Ex.P-52), a double barrel gun was also recovered from the house of accused No.2. It is merely stated that there were puncture wounds. The post mortem certificate does not state as to whether those gun wounds were caused by rifle or by gun. In the absence of any definite indication as to whether those fatal wounds were caused either by rifle or by double barrel gun, the courts ought not to have held appellantaccused No.1 responsible for the fatal fire arm wounds on the body of deceased Somiben. There was darkness at the time and the place of occurrence making it difficult for the witnesses to identify the assailants. The evidence of eye-witnesses are contradictory to each other as to the firing of the fatal blow. The guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit has to be given to the accused. The conviction of appellant-accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act is set aside and this appeal is allowed - appellant/accused No.1- Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case. Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.2. Conviction under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.3. Conviction under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act.4. Acquittal under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.5. Identification of assailants in the absence of sufficient light.6. Contradictions in witness testimonies.7. Proof of recovery of weapons.8. Evidence of ballistic expert.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused No.1 for murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on the firing of gunshots by the accused, resulting in the death of Somiben. The Supreme Court found that there were significant contradictions in the witness testimonies regarding who fired the fatal shots. The absence of clear evidence on whether the injuries were caused by a rifle or a gun raised doubts. The Supreme Court concluded that the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction.2. Conviction under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:The High Court also upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for attempting to murder PWs 6 and 7. The Supreme Court noted that the identification of the assailants was doubtful due to the lack of sufficient light at the scene. The contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under this section as well.3. Conviction under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act:The appellant was convicted under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act for possessing firearms. The Supreme Court observed that the recovery of weapons was not corroborated by independent witnesses, as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The absence of definite evidence linking the recovered weapons to the fatal injuries led the Court to set aside the conviction under this section.4. Acquittal under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:The High Court acquitted the appellant under this section, and the Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with this part of the judgment.5. Identification of assailants in the absence of sufficient light:The Supreme Court emphasized the lack of evidence regarding the availability of light at the scene of the incident, which occurred at 09:00 PM. The panchnama and witness testimonies did not confirm the presence of any electric light or moonlight. This raised doubts about the ability of the witnesses to identify the assailants, leading to the benefit of the doubt being given to the appellant.6. Contradictions in witness testimonies:The Supreme Court pointed out contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and other eyewitnesses regarding who fired the gunshots. These inconsistencies weakened the prosecution's case and contributed to the decision to set aside the convictions.7. Proof of recovery of weapons:The recovery of weapons from the accused was not supported by the panch witnesses, who turned hostile. The Supreme Court highlighted the need for corroboration from independent sources in such cases. The lack of corroboration and the contradictory evidence led to the setting aside of the conviction based on weapon recovery.8. Evidence of ballistic expert:The Supreme Court noted that the ballistic expert's opinion was based on the examination of empty cartridges and not the fired bullet. The non-recovery of the fired bullet made it difficult to definitively link the injuries to the recovered weapons. This further supported the decision to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant-accused No.1 under Sections 302, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 25(c) of the Arms Act, and ordered his release unless required in any other case. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of sufficient light for identification, and insufficient evidence linking the recovered weapons to the fatal injuries.