2012 (10) TMI 1202 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of the Appellants and convicting and sentencing each one of them under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code - Appeal u/s 379 of the CrPC - HC reversing the acquittal orders - fragile nature of the conclusions reached by the HC - All the accused persons have been convicted Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each - there was a land dispute between (D-2) and his family and A-1, and his party. There were civil litigations between the parties over the said property. the younger brother of the accused No. 15 was murdered and in the said case D-1, D-2 and D-3 were arrayed as accused. At the relevant point of time, the three deceased persons were on bail. There was another case pending against D-1 and D-2 in respect of an incident of a bomb attack on the rival party. D-1, on being inflicted injuries by the accused persons, ran towards the Police Station, situated near the court complex and made a statement (Ex. P-1) based on which the FIR (Ex. 22) was registered by PW-27. After Chargesheet filled, The learned trial Judge by the judgment and order held that the charges levelled against the accused persons have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the 23 accused were acquitted. HC set aside the acquittal of A-1 to A-19 and convicted them under different Sections of the IPC. The acquittal ordered by the learned trial court in respect of A-20, A-21, A-22, and A-23 was, however, maintained by the HC. of the 19 accused who have been convicted by the HC, A-6 and A-11 have died in the mean time. Consequently, it is the 17 accused persons against whom the order of conviction continues to be effective who have instituted the present appeal. HELD THAT - We find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion of the High Court. Firstly, if the conclusion recorded by the learned trial court was a possible conclusion, the High Court ought not to have ventured further in the matter. Secondly, the aforesaid exercise, in our considered view, did not also occasion a correct conclusion inasmuch as the presence of the accused at the spot armed with weapons and responding to the call of A-14, A-15 and A-16 to attack the deceased, even if assumed, in the absence of any further evidence, cannot establish a prior arrangement/agreement or a meeting of minds amongst the accused to commit the offence of murder so as to sustain a charge of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC. Plea of alibi - plea of alibi set up on behalf of two accused on the basis of the evidence of DWs-1, 2 and 3 was accepted by the learned trial court by holding that the defence evidence tendered in the case had established that at the time of the occurrence A-12 was in the ITI, Tuticorin whereas A-4 was in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tuticorin - HELD THAT - Reading the evidence of DWs-1, 2 and 3 and the documents exhibited in this regard (Ex. D-4, D-5, D-8, D-9, D-10) it is possible to take a view that aforesaid two accused were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The High Court answered the aforesaid issue by stating that as it was admitted by DW-1 in cross-examination that a student could leave the college after being marked present in the attendance register and as the sale deed (Ex. D-5) claimed to have been executed by A-4 in Tuticorin at the time of the incident did not specify the time of execution, the plea of alibi set up by A-4 and A-12 was not satisfactorily proved. We are, therefore, unable to accord our approval to the manner in which the High Court had dealt with this aspect of the case. Liability of the accused Appellants under the provisions of IPC - The trial court considered it prudent to view the testimony of PW-1 with great care and circumspection as the said witness is the younger brother of one of the deceased - also took into account the fact that PW-1, though examined as an eye witness, could not specifically say as to which accused had assaulted which particular deceased and the weapon(s) used - Whether the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view? - The fundamental distinction between the two situations have to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court. A consideration on the basis on which the learned trial court had founded its order of acquittal in the present case clearly reflects a possible view. There may, however, be disagreement on the correctness of the same. But that is not the test. So long as the view taken is not impossible to be arrived at and reasons therefor, relatable to the evidence and materials on record, are disclosed any further scrutiny in exercise of the power Under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure was not called for. As the High Court had embarked upon an in-depth consideration of the entire evidence on record and had arrived at conclusions contrary to those of the trial court, the discussions now will have to centre around the basis disclosed by the order of the High Court for reversing the acquittal of the accused Appellants. The grounds that had prevailed upon the High Court to hold that the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code have been proved by the prosecution in the present case have already been noticed. Our reasons for disagreeing with the said view of the High Court have also been indicated hereinabove. Similarly, the reasons for our disagreement with the conclusion of the High Court that the defence evidence adduced in the case did not satisfactorily establish the plea of alibi put forward by A-4 and A-12 have also been indicated. The aforesaid aspects of the case, therefore, would not need any further dilation and it is the reasons for the conviction of the accused Appellants Under Section 302 and the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code will be required to be noticed by us. The efficacy of the dying declaration (Ex. P-4) when the maker thereof had slipped into a coma even before completing the statement would have a serious effect on the capacity of D-1 to make such a statement. The certification made by PW-21 with regard to the condition of the deceased is definitely not the last word. Though ordinarily and in the normal course such an opinion should be accepted and acted upon by the court, in cases, where the circumstances so demand such opinions must be carefully balanced with all other surrounding facts and circumstances. All the above, in our view, demonstrates the fragile nature of the conclusions reached by the High Court in the present case. For the above reasons, we hold that conviction of the accused Appellants recorded by the High Court under the different provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences imposed cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras and confirm the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. The accused Appellants, if in custody, be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
2. Culpability under Section 302 IPC and related sections.
3. Plea of alibi by A-4 and A-12.
4. Reliability of witness testimonies and documentary evidence.
5. High Court's interference with the trial court's acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120B IPC:
The trial court acquitted all accused of the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, noting that key witnesses (PWs 15, 16, and 17) did not support the prosecution's case and the public prosecutor conceded that no case of conspiracy was established. The High Court, however, inferred a conspiracy from the accused being armed and responding to a call to attack the victims. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating the High Court should not have ventured further if the trial court's view was possible. The presence of the accused with weapons and their actions did not conclusively establish a prior agreement to commit murder.

2. Culpability under Section 302 IPC and Related Sections:
The trial court found the evidence insufficient to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC, either for individual acts or under constructive liability (Sections 34/149 IPC). The trial court noted inconsistencies and the hostile nature of key witnesses (PWs 1-4). The High Court, however, deemed the testimonies of PWs 1-4 partially supportive of the prosecution. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on these witnesses flawed, noting discrepancies and improvements in their testimonies, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade.

3. Plea of Alibi by A-4 and A-12:
The trial court accepted the alibi for A-4 and A-12, based on defence witnesses and documents showing their presence elsewhere during the incident. The High Court rejected this, citing insufficient proof. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not adhering to principles governing appeals against acquittals, emphasizing that the trial court's view was possible and should not have been overturned.

4. Reliability of Witness Testimonies and Documentary Evidence:
The trial court found the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7 (police constables) unreliable due to inconsistencies and improvements over time. The High Court dismissed these concerns, attributing errors to shock and time lapse. The Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting the failure to mention accused names in initial reports and the unexplained registration of the FIR under Section 302 IPC when the victims were still alive. The Supreme Court also questioned the reliability of the dying declaration (Ex. P-4), given the victim's condition.

5. High Court's Interference with the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The Supreme Court emphasized the principles limiting the High Court's power to overturn acquittals, noting the need for a possible view to be respected. The trial court's acquittal was based on a possible view, supported by reasonable evidence and logical conclusions. The High Court's interference was deemed inappropriate as it did not demonstrate that the trial court's view was impossible or wholly unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The accused were ordered to be released if not required in any other case.