1992 (1) TMI 361 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Motive for the murder.
2. Ocular testimony.
3. Medical evidence.
4. Plea of alibi.
5. Legal principles regarding appeals against acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Motive for the Murder:
The appellants had a strong motive to kill the deceased Saroj, who had testified against them in a kidnapping and rape case. Saroj had initially lodged a false report under duress but later revealed the truth. The High Court found that the appellants had a motive to prevent Saroj from testifying further, as her testimony was crucial in the ongoing trial against them.

2. Ocular Testimony:
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of PWs 5 and 6, the parents of the deceased, who were present during the incident. Both witnesses identified the appellants as the assailants. The High Court found their testimony credible despite the defense's argument that they were interested parties. The Court noted that the incident occurred inside the house at night, making it unlikely for independent witnesses to be present. The spontaneous declaration by PW-6 to PWs 1 and 2 immediately after the incident was considered res gestae and was admitted as evidence.

3. Medical Evidence:
The medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony. PW-17, who conducted the autopsy, found a gunshot wound on Saroj's chest, consistent with the account given by PWs 5 and 6. The ballistic expert, PW-19, confirmed that the holes in Saroj's clothing were gunshot holes, indicating that the shot was fired from close range.

4. Plea of Alibi:
The defense argued that the appellants were in Bhopal at the time of the incident, supported by testimonies from DW-1, an advocate, and DW-3, the proprietor of a lodge. However, the High Court found these testimonies unreliable and rejected the plea of alibi. The Court noted that the defense's claim of political rivalry and false implication was not substantiated by evidence.

5. Legal Principles Regarding Appeals Against Acquittal:
The appeal was filed under Section 379 of the CrPC and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970. The Supreme Court reiterated that it has the jurisdiction to interfere in cases where the High Court has reversed an acquittal. The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with an acquittal merely because it could take a different view. However, if the Trial Court's view is not reasonably sustainable, the Appellate Court can interfere. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment did not suffer from any illegality or manifest error and affirmed the conviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, finding that the prosecution had satisfactorily proved the guilt of the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's conviction and life imprisonment sentences were upheld.