2011 (9) TMI 1217 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against the reversal of acquittal by the High Court.
2. Delay in filing the special leave petition.
3. Evidentiary value of the approver/accomplice.
4. Corroborative evidence supporting the approver's testimony.
5. Reliance on hostile witnesses.
6. Application of Section 34 IPC (common intention).
7. Medical evidence corroborating the prosecution's case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appeal Against the Reversal of Acquittal by the High Court:
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal against the final judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 by the Gauhati High Court, which reversed the acquittal of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court's decision was based on the premise that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly.

2. Delay in Filing the Special Leave Petition:
The convicted accused filed the appeal by way of a special leave petition with a delay of 62 days. The Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal.

3. Evidentiary Value of the Approver/Accomplice:
The Court discussed the legal position regarding the evidentiary value of an approver's testimony. It emphasized that while a conviction based solely on an approver's uncorroborated testimony is not illegal, it is a rule of prudence to seek corroboration in material particulars. The approver's evidence should be intrinsically reliable and corroborated by independent evidence.

4. Corroborative Evidence Supporting the Approver's Testimony:
The Court analyzed the corroborative evidence provided by various witnesses. The approver (PW-6) named all the accused and described the conspiracy and execution of the crime. The testimony of eye-witnesses, including those who were in the boat and those waiting in the passenger shed, corroborated the approver's account. The Court found that the prosecution had strengthened its case through the approver's testimony and the corroborative evidence provided by the other witnesses.

5. Reliance on Hostile Witnesses:
The Court noted that the evidence of hostile witnesses could still be relied upon for corroboration. It emphasized that the testimony of a hostile witness should be considered in its entirety to determine its reliability. In this case, the corroborated part of the hostile witnesses' evidence regarding the commission of the offense was admissible and supported the prosecution's case.

6. Application of Section 34 IPC (Common Intention):
The Court examined whether the High Court was justified in applying Section 34 IPC to convict the accused. Section 34 IPC requires proof of common intention and participation in the commission of the offense. The Court found that the evidence established the existence of a common intention among the accused to commit the crime. The High Court's application of Section 34 IPC was upheld as the materials placed by the prosecution, including the approver's testimony and the eye-witness accounts, demonstrated a pre-arranged plan and common intention.

7. Medical Evidence Corroborating the Prosecution's Case:
The medical evidence provided by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination corroborated the prosecution's case. The post-mortem report and the doctor's testimony were consistent with the ocular evidence provided by the approver and other witnesses. The Court found no inconsistency between the medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal and convict the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Court found that the approver's testimony was reliable and corroborated by independent evidence, including the testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence. The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit.