2020 (9) TMI 1187 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - acquittal on suspicion, surmises and conjectures - the recovery of knife and rope at the instance of the Accused - appreciation of evidence on doubtful disclosure statements - non-examination of material witnesses - prosecution has to prove the complete chain of events - material contradictions and even the recovery of jeep, knife and rope, photographs from the jeep. HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the Accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the Accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the Accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case, the prosecution as well as the High Court considered the recovery of photographs; recovery of mobile phone belonging to PW7, recovery of the knife and rope at the instance of the Accused and on alleged disclosure statements of the Accused on 9.9.2010. The prosecution also relied upon the recovery of jeep in which the photographs of the Accused were found. The prosecution also relied upon the disclosure statement of the Accused Anwar Ali with respect to recovery of crates and for the aforesaid prosecution heavily relied upon the testimony of PW5, PW6 and PW7 - the prosecution and the IO suppressed the material facts. Even in the cross-examination, the IO has stated that the sniffer dog had done nothing on the spot. In the cross-examination, he has also specifically stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the sniffer dog had traced the strings Ex. P52, knife Ex. P59 and vest Ex. P54. However, PW4 and PW5 in their deposition have categorically stated that the knife and rope were recovered on 2.9.2010. The aforesaid cannot be said to be minor contradictions. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in not believing the disclosure statements of the Accused and the recovery of the knife, rope etc. on 9.9.2010 as alleged by the prosecution. From evidence, it emerges that the knife, rope and vest were recovered on 2.9.2010 i.e., much prior to 8.9.2010 when the Accused were arrested. The Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure as required to be followed Under Section 166(3 4), Code of Criminal Procedure Even he did not comply with the provisions of Section 100(4) Code of Criminal Procedure Non-following of the aforesaid provisions alone may not be a ground to acquit the Accused. However, considering the overall surrounding circumstances and in a case where recovery is seriously doubted, non-compliance of the aforesaid play an important role - Even the recovery of the mobile phone from the jeep belonging to PW7 also creates doubt. Though, PW7 has stated that his mobile was stolen or cheated, he never filed any complaint earlier. Even the IO has not tried to have the call details of the mobile. He has not tried to verify from the call details the conversation to or from the mobile. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which were based on appreciation of the entire evidence on record cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the evidence on record and/or it cannot be said that the trial Court did not consider any material evidence on record. Trial Court was justified in recording the acquittal by observing that prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of event - the High Court is not justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence.
3. Credibility of recovery evidence and disclosure statements.
4. Non-compliance with procedural requirements.
5. Absence of motive in circumstantial evidence cases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Reversing the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The appellants contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the trial court's well-reasoned judgment of acquittal based on suspicion, surmises, and conjectures. The Supreme Court reiterated that an appellate court should not ordinarily set aside an acquittal judgment where two views are possible. The appellate court must consider whether the trial court's findings were perverse or unsustainable, failing to consider admissible evidence or considering inadmissible evidence. The High Court can interfere only in exceptional cases where the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse.

2. Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence:
The case was based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the prosecution to prove a complete chain of events leading to the only conclusion of the accused's guilt. The trial court found material contradictions in the evidence, particularly regarding the recovery of the knife and rope, which were allegedly recovered on different dates according to different witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized that in circumstantial evidence cases, the chain of evidence must be complete and incapable of any other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused.

3. Credibility of Recovery Evidence and Disclosure Statements:
The prosecution relied on the recovery of the jeep, mobile phone, photographs, knife, and rope based on the accused's disclosure statements. The trial court found these recoveries doubtful due to contradictions in witness testimonies and the timing of the recoveries. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, noting that the contradictions were not minor and that the prosecution suppressed material facts. The recovery of the knife and rope on 2.9.2010 contradicted the alleged disclosure statements of the accused on 8.9.2010, making the prosecution's case suspicious.

4. Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The Supreme Court noted that the investigating officer did not follow the procedure under Sections 166(3) & (4) and 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the recovery of the jeep and other items. While non-compliance alone may not be a ground for acquittal, it plays an important role when the recovery is seriously doubted. The failure to examine independent witnesses and verify call details further weakened the prosecution's case.

5. Absence of Motive in Circumstantial Evidence Cases:
The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish a motive, which is crucial in circumstantial evidence cases. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the absence of motive cannot be a sole ground for rejecting the prosecution case, it weighs in favor of the accused in circumstantial evidence cases. The trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of events was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal. The trial court's findings were based on a thorough appreciation of the evidence and were neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court's judgment was quashed, and the trial court's acquittal was restored. The accused were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.