2008 (1) TMI 981 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-examination of key witnesses (S.O. and I.O.).
2. Discrepancies in witness testimonies.
3. Credibility of the prosecution's evidence.
4. High Court's justification for acquittal.

Summary:

Non-examination of Key Witnesses:
The High Court set aside the conviction primarily due to the non-examination of the Station Officer (S.O.) Ram Charan Singh and the Investigating Officer (I.O.). The High Court held that their testimonies were essential for unfolding the prosecution narrative, and their absence was fatal to the case. The Supreme Court agreed, citing the case of *Habeeb Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad [AIR 1954 SC 51]*, which emphasized the necessity of calling witnesses essential to the prosecution's narrative.

Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies:
The High Court noted several discrepancies in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2. These included contradictions regarding the time of departure from the police station, the presence of an informer, and the sequence of events. The Supreme Court found these discrepancies significant enough to question the credibility of the prosecution's case.

Credibility of the Prosecution's Evidence:
The High Court found that the accused were allegedly caught on the spot without any resistance, which seemed improbable. Additionally, the prosecution failed to examine any adjoining grove holders or landholders who could have corroborated the events. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment that these factors undermined the prosecution's case.

High Court's Justification for Acquittal:
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the High Court had given due reasons after considering all the evidence and materials on record. The Supreme Court also referenced the case of *Ram Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. [1974 (3) SCC 388]*, which allows for an adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining key witnesses.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment of acquittal. It emphasized that unless the High Court's findings were perverse or arbitrary, it would not ordinarily interfere with an acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.