9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (8) TMI 1264 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - Offence punishable u/s 302 and 394 of the IPC - someone by killing and also amputating the feet of a lady has taken away her silver anklets - The High Court acquitted the respondent of all the charges by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed against the accused by the trial court - recovery of ornaments of deceased on the basis of the information furnished by the accused - PW-17 recovered a pair of silver anklets of feet one pair of silver bracelets of hands one pair of silver earrings and one golden nose- ring (nath) from Ramcharan and prepared memo Exhibit P-14. Again on 27.01.1994 accused Naresh gave information Exhibit P-18 to PW-21 for the recovery of Khurpi the alleged weapon of offence and pursuant to which PW-21 recovered Khurpi at the instance of accused Naresh under Exhibit P-10. High Court held that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and the entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Each of the circumstance allegedly making a chain was examined by the High Court and on scrutiny thereof held that none of the said circumstances lead to the inference that the respondent had committed the aforesaid offence. HELD THAT - Before we discuss the evidence on record we must bear in mind the scope of interference with an order of acquittal. An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused. This Court has dealt with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of cases. The principle deducible from the said Judgments regarding the scope of interference with an order of acquittal could be summarized. None of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stands proved against the accused leading to a definite conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the offence. It is also not known why the said witness had turned her back towards the accused only because the accused was washing his hands. If accused was washing his hands as stated by Mathura (PW-4) there is no likelihood of body of the accused being smeared with mud as alleged by some of the prosecution witnesses (PWs 7 8). We do not find any such direct evidence that the said strap of wristwatch belongs to the watch of the accused. None of the witnesses stated that such strap of wristwatch belongs to the accused nor any wristwatch has been recovered from the accused. So far the time of occurrence is concerned there is also no unanimity and the evidence is scanty regarding the time of occurrence. In our considered opinion the evidence regarding commission of offence by the accused in the field and also amputation of legs of the deceased is neither cogent nor reliable and therefore those circumstances cannot be relied upon for basing conviction of the respondent. Recovery of ornaments is concerned the star witness in that regard is PW-20. If the accused has taken away the jewellery on the same day then how could the police recover the same jewellery from the custody and possession of PW-20. Besides since he had stated that he would not purchase the jewellery there was no occasion for Naresh to keep that jewellery with PW-20. In the disclosure statements the accused stated that he sold the jewellery to Ram Chandra Saraf whereas the same was recovered from PW-20. On scrutinizing the evidence we find that the aforesaid recovery of jewellery is shrouded in a total mystery as it was not recovered from the place and person to whom allegedly accused sold. Recovery of Khurpi is concerned the same admittedly did not contain any bloodstains on it and it was recovered from an open place. Since there was no bloodstain on it the police also did not send it for chemical examination. Therefore it cannot be said that the said weapon was used for committing murder of the deceased. There could be some suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused at the time of occurrence but the same cannot in any manner conclusively prove and establish that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. Unless and until we are satisfied that the evidence adduced clearly and pointedly establish the guilt of the accused we cannot pass an order of conviction by setting aside the order of acquittal. The view that is taken by the High Court is found to be a plausible view and therefore the benefit must always go to the accused and not to the prosecution. If the prosecution wants to prove the fact the same must be proved by leading evidence which is reliable and trustworthy which pinpoints and conclusively proves the guilt of the accused. This is not a case where we can safely hold that the evidence led was trustworthy and conclusively establishes that it is the accused only who had committed the offence. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal. We accordingly dismiss this appeal and uphold the order of acquittal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the accused by the High Court. 2. Examination of circumstantial evidence. 3. Recovery of ornaments and weapon. 4. Scope of interference with an order of acquittal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Acquittal of the accused by the High Court: The State of Rajasthan filed a criminal appeal against the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent-accused of charges under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC. The High Court had set aside the trial court's conviction, leading to this appeal. 2. Examination of circumstantial evidence: The High Court found that the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitnesses. The prosecution's evidence was scrutinized, and it was determined that the circumstances did not conclusively link the accused to the crime. Discrepancies were noted in the testimonies regarding the accused being "last seen" with the deceased and the accused running from the crime scene. 3. Recovery of ornaments and weapon: The High Court questioned the evidence related to the recovery of the deceased's ornaments. The accused had allegedly informed the police about selling the ornaments to Ram Chandra Saraf, but they were recovered from Ram Charan (PW-20), who denied purchasing them. The recovery of the weapon ("Khurpi") was also found unreliable as it had no bloodstains and was recovered from an accessible open place. 4. Scope of interference with an order of acquittal: The Supreme Court emphasized that an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with unless there are compelling reasons. The principle is to prefer the view that favors the accused if two reasonable conclusions are possible. The Court reiterated the need for cogent and reliable evidence to overturn an acquittal. Detailed Analysis: Acquittal of the accused by the High Court: The High Court acquitted the accused by finding that the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, which did not conclusively prove the accused's guilt. The discrepancies in the evidence led to the conclusion that the circumstances did not inspire confidence. Examination of circumstantial evidence: The High Court noted that the prosecution's case relied on several circumstantial evidences: - The accused was seen examining the deceased's palm. - The accused followed the deceased to the field. - The accused washed his hands after the crime, and blood was found at the scene. - The accused returned from the field smeared with mud and carrying a "Potli." The High Court found these circumstances unconvincing due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies. For instance, Mathura (PW-4) did not witness the actual crime despite being near the scene, and there was no evidence of bloodstains on the accused or the soil. Recovery of ornaments and weapon: The High Court scrutinized the recovery of the deceased's ornaments and found it unreliable. The ornaments were recovered from PW-20, not from the person the accused had allegedly sold them to. PW-20's testimony was inconsistent, and the recovery was shrouded in mystery. The "Khurpi" recovered as the weapon had no bloodstains and was found in an open, accessible place, making it unreliable as evidence. Scope of interference with an order of acquittal: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing interference with acquittal orders. An appellate court has full power to review evidence but must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The Court emphasized that compelling reasons are needed to overturn an acquittal, and the evidence must conclusively prove the accused's guilt. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding that the prosecution's evidence was neither cogent nor reliable. The circumstances did not conclusively establish the accused's guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal was upheld.
|
