2009 (2) TMI 869 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of High Court's reversal of trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.
3. Applicability of Section 25 of the Arms Act.
4. Consistency of prosecution's case with medical and ballistic evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of High Court's reversal of trial court's acquittal:
The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment which reversed the trial court's acquittal, arguing that the High Court's interference was unjustified and contrary to established principles under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court reiterated that if two views are possible, the High Court should not disturb the trial court's acquittal unless the conclusions are unreasonable, perverse, or unsustainable. The Supreme Court found the trial court's view reasonable and plausible, thus the High Court's interference was unwarranted.

2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility:
The trial court had acquitted the appellant based on several findings: the incident did not occur as alleged, the identity of the accused was not established beyond doubt, and there were inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The High Court, however, found the evidence of key witnesses believable despite minor contradictions. The Supreme Court, upon independent analysis, found significant discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which were not minor but vital for disbelieving their testimonies. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court disregarded these discrepancies and wrongly overturned the trial court's acquittal.

3. Applicability of Section 25 of the Arms Act:
The High Court convicted the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which pertains to the illegal possession and use of arms. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellant was charged and tried under Section 27 of the Arms Act for using a firearm, not for possessing it illegally. Therefore, the High Court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 25.

4. Consistency of prosecution's case with medical and ballistic evidence:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's evidence was inconsistent with medical and ballistic reports. The medical evidence indicated that the injuries could not have been caused by a single bullet as alleged. The ballistic expert's report also contradicted the prosecution's case regarding the weapon used. The trial court had noted these inconsistencies and acquitted the appellant, a decision the Supreme Court found reasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's acquittal. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.