9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court's interference with the trial court's acquittal. 2. Evaluation of prosecution's evidence and witness credibility. 3. Variance between the First Information Report (FIR) and witness depositions. 4. Presence of reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. Detailed Analysis: Legitimacy of the High Court's Interference with the Trial Court's Acquittal The appellants argued that the High Court was not justified in overturning the trial court's acquittal, which was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled position of law that the High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. The presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal, and the trial court's views on witness credibility must be given proper weight. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including *Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh*, emphasizing that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted. The High Court should not overturn an acquittal unless there are compelling reasons. Evaluation of Prosecution's Evidence and Witness Credibility The trial court had acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court critically examined the testimony of key witnesses (PWs 1, 4, 5, and 6) and found material contradictions in their statements. The trial court noted that the prosecution's case presented in court differed significantly from the version in the FIR. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was untrustworthy due to these contradictions. Variance Between the FIR and Witness Depositions The FIR stated that the accused used guns during the attack, but the post-mortem reports did not show gunshot injuries on the deceased. The trial court found this discrepancy significant and concluded that the prosecution had introduced a new case during the trial to explain the absence of gunshot injuries. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had not committed any glaring irregularity in disbelieving the eye-witnesses whose testimony was contrary to the FIR. The Panchanamas prepared immediately after the occurrence showed gunshot injuries, but the post-mortem reports did not, further supporting the trial court's findings. Presence of Reasonable Doubt in the Prosecution's Case The Supreme Court found that the trial court was justified in concluding that the occurrence did not happen as stated by the prosecution witnesses. The variance between the FIR and the depositions, the mention of gunshot injuries in the Panchanamas, and their absence in the post-mortem reports created reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court emphasized that even if another view was possible, the High Court should not have set aside the trial court's order without compelling reasons. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all shadows of doubt, entitling the appellants to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and upholding the trial court's acquittal. The appellants were to be set at liberty unless required in another case. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of ensuring that no wrongful conviction occurs, reinforcing the principle that the benefit of doubt should favor the accused.
|
