Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – In the instant case, eleven accused were tried together for the offences under ss.147,148, 324, 326, 307, 427 and 302 r/ws.149 IPC– Trial Court convicted accused no.1 to 3 u/ss. 148 and 302 of IPC and acquitted accused no.4 to
11 – High Court reversed conviction of accused no.1 to 3 and confirmed the acquittal of accused no.4 to 11 – State and complainant filed appeal against acquittal – Held: With respect to accused no.1 to 3, they were identified by PW1, PW3 & PW6 – They were main assailants – The depositions of the eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses showed no major/material contradictions – Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded – Delay of 7 hours in filing FIR was not fatal to the prosecution case – Even FIR was sent to magistrate within 24 hours as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. – PW6 was an injured eye-witness and his presence cannot be doubted and being an injured eye-witness, his deposition was reliable – High Court committed error in reversing the conviction of accused no.1 to 3 – In respect of accused no.4 to 11, the findings recorded in respect of their acquittal were on appreciation of evidence on record and the view taken by the trial Court acquitting Accused Nos. 4 to 11, which was affirmed/confirmed by the High Court, was a plausible view – Roles attributed to Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Accused Nos. 4 to 11 were different – Therefore, case of Accused Nos. 4 to 11 was not comparable with the case of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 – No interference called for with concurrent findings of acquittal against accused no.44 to 11.
Allowing the appeals against the acquittal of accused nos.
1 to 3 and dismissing the appeals against the acquittal of accused nos.4 to 11, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case the prosecution examined five important and relevant witnesses – PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6 & PW7, out of which PW1, PW3 & PW5 were the eyewitnesses and PW6 & PW7 were the injured eye-witnesses. Accused Nos.
1 to 3 were identified by PW1, PW3 & PW6. Though, the learned trial Court has disbelieved PW5, the High Court has not at all discussed and/or re-appreciated the evidence/deposition of PW5, which as a first appellate Court, the High Court was required to. Having gone through the deposition of the relevant witnesses – eye witnesses/injured eye-witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that there are no major/material contradictions in the deposition of the eye-witnesses and injured eye-witnesses. All are consistent insofar as accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned. The High Court has observed that PW1, PW3 & PW5 were planted witnesses merely on the ground that they were all interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased. Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in discarding the deposition/evidence of PW1, PW3, PW5 & PW6 and even PW7. [Paras 9, 10][510-D-H]
2. One another reason given by the High Court is that the FIR was not registered at the time as claimed by the prosecution, but it was registered many hours after the occurrence and sent to the Magistrate with unexplained delay and according to the High Court, this facilitated the police to falsely implicate the accused after PW1 arrived at the police station. However, the FIR was lodged within seven hours. As per the prosecution, it was lodged immediately. The interpolation of the time of the incident, 0.30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., could not be explained as the same was not raised before the trial Court. No question on the same was asked to the concerned witnesses. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of seven hours cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. Even the FIR was sent to the Magistrate within 24 hours, as required under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. [Para 11][511-B-D]
3. The High Court has unnecessarily given weightage to some minor contradictions. The contradictions, if any, are not material contradictions which can affect the case of the prosecution as a whole. PW6 was an injured eye-witness and therefore his presence ought not to have been doubted and being an injured eye-witness, as per the settled proposition of law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions, his deposition has a greater reliability and credibility. The High Court has committed a grave error in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and the High Court has erred in acquitting Accused Nos. 1 to 3. [Paras 12, 14][511-E-F; 512-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.