Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(1)(b) – Appeal in case of acquittal – Interference by High Court – Scope – Prosecution’s case that the accused persons took the jeep of the victim-deceased on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep – Appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced for offence punishable u/s.392, IPC however, were acquitted u/s.302 r/w s.34 and ss.396 and 397, IPC – High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them for offences punishable u/ss.302, 396, IPC and sentenced accordingly – Correctness:
Held: No direct evidence was led to bring home the charges against the accused and the entire case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution miserably failed to lead reliable, tangible and convincing links forming a complete chain of incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge of murder punishable u/s.302 – Further, while reversing the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial Court for the charges u/s.302 r/w s.34 and ss.396, 397, the High Court did not record any such finding that the view taken by the trial Court based on appreciation of evidence was either perverse or it was not one of the permissible views favouring the acquittal of the accused – Thus, the impugned judgment falls short of the satisfaction mandatorily required to be recorded for reversing a judgment of acquittal and converting it to one of conviction – Judgment of the High Court is based on conjectures and surmises rather than on any substantive or reliable circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused – Judgment of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the accused for offence u/s.392 is also based on the same set of inadmissible and unreliable links of circumstantial evidence, and the impugned judgment of the High Court are quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted. [Paras 22, 37, 38-41]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Standard of proof – Prosecution case that the accused persons had taken the jeep of the victim-deceased on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep – Case of prosecution based entirely on circumstantial evidence:
Held: Prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence comprising of disclosures, recoveries and discoveries for bringing home the guilt of the accused – The most important recovery was allegedly of the jeep – The said recovery was attributed to A1, who was allegedly apprehended by PSI (PW-22) – He forwarded a report/communication (Exhibit-96) to the officer in-charge of the Sardarnagar Police Station wherein, the confession made by A1 implicating himself and the other accused was recorded – So called disclosure statement made by A1 (Exhibit-96) on which the prosecution banked upon and the High Court relied upon by treating it to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused persons was inadmissible, unworthy of reliance and doubtful and cannot be read in evidence against the other accused i.e. A2, A3 and A5 – Exhibit-96 being hit by s.25, Evidence Act cannot be read in evidence for any purpose whatsoever – The prosecution pinned the identity of A2, A3, and A5 as the assailants on the basis of the disclosure statement (Exhibit-96) of A1 – They were primarily convicted on the basis of the recoveries of knives and clothes – These so called incriminating articles allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused were never sent to the Serology expert for comparison of the blood groups existing thereupon with the blood group of the deceased – Evidence of the concerned police officials associated with the recoveries and their testimonies were highly doubtful – The knife which was recovered at the instance of A3 was found from a nala which is a place open and accessible to all – The knife attributed to A4 cannot be linked to him – Recoveries were highly doubtful and tainted – These recoveries in no manner can be treated to be incriminating in nature – Even if it is assumed that such recoveries were effected, the same did not lead to any conclusive circumstance in form of Serological report establishing the presence of the same blood group as that of the deceased and hence they do not further the cause of prosecution – Prosecution failed to lead the link evidence mandatorily required to establish the factum of safe keeping of the muddamal articles and hence, the recoveries became irrelevant. [Paras 26-28, 30, 34-36]
Evidence – Confession of one co-accused against the other – Evidentiary value – Such statement not a substantive piece of evidence. [Para 36]
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.