2021 (5) TMI 1006 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - reversal of acquittal passed by High Court - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court? - HELD THAT - The prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, more particularly PW2 PW4 and they are found to be trustworthy and reliable, non-examination of the independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Nothing is on record that those two persons, namely, Shiv Shankar and Bhagwati Prasad as mentioned in the FIR reached the spot were mentioned as witnesses in the chargesheet. In any case, PW2 PW4 have fully supported the case of the prosecution and therefore non-examination of the aforesaid two persons shall not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. A suggestion was put to him in the cross-examination that at the time of arrest the Accused Murlidhar Pathak did not receive any injury, however, the same has been specifically denied that it is not true that he did not receive injury at the time of his arrest. Similar suggestions were made to other witnesses and the same were denied. Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to explain the injury on the said Accused. Even the aforesaid aspect has been considered in detail by the High Court and the said statement has been appreciated by the High Court on re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, more particularly the medical evidence and even the deposition of the doctors examined by the prosecution as well as by the defence. When the High Court has come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while acquitting the Accused were perverse and even contrary to the evidence on record and/or misreading of the evidence, the High Court has rightly interfered with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and has rightly convicted the Accused. In the present case, the Appellant-original Accused No. 4 was specifically named right from the very beginning in the FIR. He has been attributed the specific role. The same has been established and proved from the evidence of PW4 (even if the deposition of PW2 is for the time being ignored). No error has been committed by the High Court in interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the Accused. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of witnesses.
3. Establishment of motive.
4. Examination of independent witnesses.
5. Medical evidence and explanation of injuries on the accused.
6. Determination of the place of occurrence.
7. Firearm injury inconsistency.
8. Right of private defense.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the trial court's acquittal:
The High Court is justified in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and coming to its conclusion as the first appellate court. The High Court found the trial court's acquittal to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, thus warranting interference. The principles laid down in Babu v. State of Kerala and other precedents were applied, emphasizing that the High Court can interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's findings are perverse or unsustainable.

2. Evaluation of evidence and credibility of witnesses:
The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW2 and PW4, were trustworthy and reliable. The trial court's reasons for doubting their credibility, such as being related to the deceased and termed as chance witnesses, were not sufficient to discard their testimonies. The High Court noted that the absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the prosecution's case as the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible.

3. Establishment of motive:
The High Court observed that the presence of direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses made the absence of motive insignificant. The accused's own statement in the 313 CrPC examination acknowledged enmity, thus supporting the prosecution's case.

4. Examination of independent witnesses:
The High Court held that the non-examination of independent witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution's case. The reliable evidence of the eyewitnesses was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The precedents in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab were cited to support this view.

5. Medical evidence and explanation of injuries on the accused:
The prosecution explained the injuries on the accused Murlidhar Pathak as occurring during his arrest. The High Court found this explanation credible and consistent with the evidence. The reliance on Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. was distinguished, as the injuries were not of a serious nature and did not affect the prosecution's case.

6. Determination of the place of occurrence:
The High Court found that the prosecution had established the place of occurrence near Primary Pathshala, supported by the recovery of the dead body and blood-stained items from the spot. The defense's claim that the incident occurred near the accused's house was not supported by evidence.

7. Firearm injury inconsistency:
The High Court noted that the prosecution never claimed that the deceased sustained a firearm injury. The evidence showed that a shot was fired in the air as the accused fled, which did not contradict the medical evidence.

8. Right of private defense:
The High Court rejected the defense's claim of private defense, as there was no evidence to support that the deceased was the aggressor or that the accused acted in self-defense. The prosecution's evidence was clear and consistent in establishing the accused's guilt.

Conclusion:
The High Court's decision to reverse the trial court's acquittal and convict the accused was upheld. The High Court's reappreciation of evidence was justified, and the findings of the trial court were found to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The appeal was dismissed, and the accused was ordered to surrender to serve the sentence.

← Previous Next →