Appeal against acquittal – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.120B – Murder – 71 out of the total 87 witnesses including eye-witnesses turned hostile – Trial Court acquitted the accused persons – High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused relying on the testimony of the IOs based only on the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s.161, CrPC – Sustainability: Held: Unsustainable – High Court erred in relying on the statements made by the witnesses u/s.161, CrPC as affirmed by the IO, in violation of s.162, CrPC – What is revealed in the investigation to the IO has to be clearly established before Court by oral testimony or other evidence, failing which the Court cannot base a conviction on the predilection of the IO that a particular circumstance was revealed in the investigation – Statements made by the IOs regarding the motive, conspiracy and preparation comes out as the prosecution story, as discernible from the s.161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by the police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible u/s.162, CrPC – Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility, enabling acceptance, unless the witnesses themselves spoke of such motive or acts of commission or omission or instances from which conspiracy could be inferred as also the preparation, established beyond reasonable doubt – High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the Trial Court on mere surmises and conjectures relying wholly on the testimony of the IOs, who merely regurgitated the statements recorded u/s.161 and the voluntary statements of the accused – Prosecution failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each accused – Judgment of the High Court reversed, accused acquitted. [Paras 14, 19, 26, 48, 49]
Appeal against acquittal – Murder – Hostile witnesses – Trial Court acquitted the accused persons – High Court reversed the acquittal – Whether present was a case of two probable views, in which case the one favourable to the accused ought to be taken:
Held: No – In the present case, there are no two views coming forth from the evidence – The only view that comes forth is that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused, more by reason of all the witnesses turning hostile for reasons unknown – Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the IOs which is founded only on s.161, CrPC statements and voluntary statements of accused; the former violative of s.162, CrPC and the latter in breach of ss.25, 26, Evidence Act – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161, 162 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25-27. [Para 48]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25-27, 30 – Confession u/s.27 not relied upon:
Held: Confessions allegedly made by A1 regarding the sites where the conspiracy was hatched and the money transacted does not lead to any discovery of fact – The narration about the conspiracy and the money transactions are not admissible and the mere pointing out of two sites does not lead to any discovery of fact, when the narration is eschewed – The clothes and machetes allegedly, worn by A5 & A6 and used by them to commit the crime, were recovered on the confession statement of A3, the alleged conspirator – However, neither the clothes nor machetes are connected to A5 & A6 who were alleged to have committed the crime nor is A3, an alleged conspirator even accused of having been involved in the crime proper, that is the murder of the deceased – Confession u/s.27 cannot be relied upon and no aid can be drawn from it to implicate the other accused – The sites pointed out by A1, did not lead to any discovery of a fact and it is hit by ss.25 and 26 . [Paras 39, 45]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.