2014 (2) TMI 1389 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - charge of abduction - Shyamal and Prosanta were charged with having abducted Paritosh and thereafter having murdered him - HELD THAT - The High Court believed the testimony of Dipak and Panchu and came to the conclusion that they had crossed the river along with Paritosh, Shyamal and Prosanta. However, the High Court did not take into consideration the view of the Trial Court, based on the evidence on record, that it was doubtful if the five persons mentioned above boarded the boat belonging to Asit Sarkar to cross the river as alleged by the prosecution. The High Court also did not consider the apparently incorrect testimony of Animesh who had stated that he had gone to the police station and given his version but despite this, he was not cited as a witness. The version of Animesh was specifically denied by the Investigating Officer. When the basic fact of Paritosh having boarded a boat and crossing the river with Shyamal and Prosanta is in doubt, the substratum of the prosecution's case virtually falls flat and the truth of the subsequent events also becomes doubtful. Unfortunately, the High Court does not seem to have looked at the evidence from the point of view of the accused who had already secured an acquittal. This is an important perspective as noted in the fourth principle of Chandrappa - Merely because the High Court disagreed (without giving reasons why it did so) with the reasonable and possible view of the Trial Court, on a completely independent analysis of the evidence on record, is not a sound basis to set aside the order of acquittal given by the Trial Court. This is not to say that every fact arrived at or every reason given by the Trial Court must be dealt with - all that it means is that the decision of the Trial Court cannot be ignored or treated as non-existent. The facts of this case demonstrate that the first link in the chain of circumstances is missing. It is only if this first link is established that the subsequent links may be formed on the basis of the last seen theory. But the High Court overlooked the missing link, as it were, and directly applied the last seen theory. In our opinion, this was a rather unsatisfactory way of dealing with the appeal - we are unable to agree with learned Counsel for the State and are of the opinion that there was really no occasion for the High Court to have overturned the view of the Trial Court which was not only a reasonable view but a probable view of the events. The view taken by the Trial Court was a reasonable and probable view on the facts of the case. Consequently, there was no occasion for the High Court to set aside the acquittal of Shyamal and Prosanta. Accordingly, their conviction and sentence handed down by the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limits of interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal by the Trial Court.
2. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of witnesses.
3. Application of the "last seen theory."
4. Circumstantial evidence and the necessity of a complete chain of events.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limits of Interference by the High Court:
The primary issue in this appeal was the extent to which the High Court can interfere with an acquittal by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court's acquittal unless there was a significant error in the judgment. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of motive, which the High Court failed to consider adequately. The Supreme Court reiterated that an appellate court must identify and correct significant errors in the Trial Court's judgment rather than merely substituting its opinion.

2. Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses:
The Trial Court had found inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, including Amaresh, Bidyutprava Saha, Animesh, Dipak, and Panchu. For instance, Animesh's testimony about seeing the accused and the victim together was not corroborated by the other witnesses. The Investigating Officer also noted discrepancies between the witnesses' statements during the investigation and their testimonies in court. The Supreme Court highlighted that these inconsistencies justified the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused due to the benefit of doubt.

3. Application of the "Last Seen Theory":
The High Court had relied on the "last seen theory," concluding that since the victim was last seen with the accused, they were responsible for his death. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court did not adequately consider the Trial Court's doubts about the basic fact of the victim crossing the river with the accused. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court overlooked the need for a reasonable explanation from the accused, which was not provided, but this alone was insufficient to overturn the acquittal.

4. Circumstantial Evidence and the Necessity of a Complete Chain of Events:
The case was based on circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete chain of events to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court emphasized that the first link in the chain of circumstances was missing, as there was no conclusive evidence that the victim had crossed the river with the accused. The High Court's reliance on the last seen theory without establishing this first link was deemed insufficient. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the chain of events must be so complete as to leave no room for any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Trial Court's view was reasonable and probable based on the evidence presented. The High Court's decision to overturn the acquittal was not justified, as it failed to identify significant errors in the Trial Court's judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction and sentence of the accused, restoring the Trial Court's acquittal. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was allowed.