1988 (8) TMI 411 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the Allahabad High Court Held that - The post crime conduct of the accused cannot also be lost sight of. The plea of alibi has not been pursued. It has been proved that the accused was not available in the town after the occurrence till 34 November 1977. It is on record that the accused could not be traced and proceedings under sec. 82/83 Cr. Penal Code were initiated. The warrant of arrest issued against the accused returned unserved. There-after proclamation was made and his property was attached. That was on 23 November 1977. He appeared on the next day in the Police Station Kotwali. That has been proved by the general diary entry (Ex.Ka. 22) of the said Police Station. It may be noted that the investigation in this case was conducted without loss of time. Since the murder was committed at a public place where the Sub-Divisional magistrate and Tehsildar were present, the Investigating Officer must have been keen to arrest the accused immediately. That was perhaps the reason why he took proceedings under sec. 82/83 Cr.P.C. We must really appreciate the proper and prompt investigation made in this case. We have given our anxious consideration to all material facts and circumstances of the case. It seems to us, that the decision of the High Court cannot be supported.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's acquittal of the accused.
2. Credibility of eyewitness testimonies.
3. Evaluation of the prosecution's evidence.
4. The legal principles guiding appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Acquittal of the Accused:
The Supreme Court examined the order of acquittal recorded by the Allahabad High Court, which had overturned the trial court's conviction of the accused for the murder of KK. The High Court's reasoning was scrutinized, particularly its assessment of the strained relations between the accused's family and KK, and its doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's eyewitnesses.

2. Credibility of Eyewitness Testimonies:
The High Court disbelieved the eyewitnesses on various grounds. Prahlad Kumar (PW 1) was disbelieved because he did not disclose the name of the assailant to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar immediately after the incident. Chhotey Lal (PW 2) was considered a chance witness, and his presence at the crime scene was doubted based on the timing of his departure from the market. Raju (PW 3) was rejected as a child witness, with the High Court questioning the reasonableness of his presence at the spot and his omission from the FIR.

The Supreme Court, however, found these reasons unconvincing. It emphasized that the report to the police was lodged promptly at 9.15 p.m., containing all particulars of the crime, including the names of eyewitnesses and the manner in which it was committed. The Court noted that the High Court overlooked the natural human tendencies and circumstances surrounding the event.

3. Evaluation of the Prosecution's Evidence:
The Supreme Court highlighted the promptness and thoroughness of the investigation, including the collection of blood-stained evidence and the immediate recording of eyewitness statements. The Court found the testimonies of PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3 credible and consistent with the physical evidence and medical reports. The Court also noted the post-crime conduct of the accused, including his disappearance and the subsequent legal proceedings for his arrest.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for discarding the prosecution's case based on minor inconsistencies and for not appreciating the overall truth of the evidence presented. The Court reiterated that it is the duty of the judiciary to sift through the evidence and separate the truth from falsehood, rather than dismissing the case for minor discrepancies.

4. Legal Principles Guiding Appeals Under Article 136:
The Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, emphasizing that it does not reweigh evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the acquittal is perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust. The Court cited previous judgments to support its stance, noting that it intervenes only when no reasonable person would have arrived at the conclusion reached by the lower court.

In this case, the Supreme Court found the High Court's acquittal to be unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, thus warranting intervention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. The accused was ordered to undergo the remaining part of his sentence, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and fair evaluation of evidence in criminal trials. Appeals allowed.

← Previous Next →