2003 (9) TMI 820 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the acquittal Order - Delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report to the Magistrate - homicidal death - Offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') - Benefit of doubt - HELD THAT - There is no evidence to show that the tractor was in usable condition. Even if it was in usable condition the frame of mind of one who had lost his son and other close relative using a tractor to cover a distance of 9 K.M. at a point of time, has been lost sight of by the High Court. It is not unusual for a person to avail public transport facility to go to a police station. Much has been made of not lodging the case at the police post. An explanation has been offered as to why it has not been done. The High Court very lightly brushed it aside. Unfortunately, the High Court came to conclude on surmises and conjectures that the FIR was lodged after deliberation. It is not unusual for a person to avail public transport facility to go to a police station. Much has been made of not lodging the case at the police post. An explanation has been offered as to why it has not been done. The High Court very lightly brushed it aside. Unfortunately, the High Court came to conclude on surmises and conjectures that the FIR was lodged after deliberation. There was no material to support such a conclusion. The distance between the police post and the Ilaqa Magistrate is about 20 K.M. The special report reached the Magistrate within a few hours. That by itself is not of suspicious circumstance. The High Court has not considered that the distance is 20 K.M. Additionally, no question was put to the investigating officer as to why it took 3 hours for the report to reach the Magistrate. Had such a question been put, the investigating officer would have been in a position to explain the delay, if any. Without seeking for a response from the investigating officer, it is not open to say that there was delay in sending the report. Otherwise, an adverse inference would be drawn in respect of a matter for which no explanation is sought for from the relevant witnesses. It is not the time, but unexplained delay in a case, which is of relevance. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the High Court was wrong in holding that there was delay in lodging the FIR and in sending the special report. The vulnerability of the High Court's judgment is amplified by the fact that it has put great emphasis on the acquittal of two co-accused to discard PW's 5 evidence. That per se was not a ground to find the evidence as tainted. The eye-witnesses have described the incident with graphic detail and except minor discrepancies which do not in any way corrode the prosecution version, their testimony has remained unshaken in spite of incisive cross examination. The trial Court had carefully scrutinized their evidence and acted on it. On the contrary, the High Court without even indicating any plausible reason as to why the evidence was not acceptable, has chosen to ignore it and characterize it as unreliable. By a cryptic judgment more based on surmises and conjectures than appraisal of evidence, the High Court has discarded it. That being the position, inevitable conclusion is that the High Court's judgment is indefensible and deserves to be set aside which we direct. Judgment of the Trial Court is restored. The appeal is allowed. The respondents who are on bail are directed to surrender to custody to serve remainder of the sentence.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report to the Magistrate.
2. Reliability of eyewitness testimony and extra judicial confession.
3. High Court's reasoning for acquittal based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Appellate Court's scope for interference with an order of acquittal.

Summary:

1. Delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report to the Magistrate:
The High Court held that there was an unusual delay in lodging the FIR and dispatching the special report to the Magistrate. The incident occurred at 5.30 a.m., the FIR was lodged at 10.45 a.m., and the special report reached the Magistrate at 2.40 p.m. The Supreme Court found that the High Court acted on surmises, noting that the informant's use of public transport instead of a tractor and the distance of 20 K.M. between the police post and the Magistrate were not suspicious circumstances. The Court emphasized that unexplained delay, not the time taken, is relevant, and no adverse inference should be drawn without questioning the investigating officer.

2. Reliability of eyewitness testimony and extra judicial confession:
The High Court questioned the reliability of eyewitnesses PWs 2 and 5 due to their relationship with the deceased and alleged improvements in their statements. The Supreme Court rejected this, stating that being close relatives does not make witnesses partisan or unreliable. The Court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that the testimony of relatives should not be dismissed solely on that basis. The trial Court had carefully scrutinized their evidence, finding it credible despite minor discrepancies.

3. High Court's reasoning for acquittal based on conjectures and surmises:
The High Court's acquittal was based on conjectures, such as questioning why the accused would commit murder during the day. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that the prosecution is not required to address every hypothetical question posed by the defense. The Court highlighted that the High Court failed to comprehend the evidence fully and relied on vague hunches rather than judicial evaluation.

4. Appellate Court's scope for interference with an order of acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which an acquittal is based. The Court emphasized that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted, but miscarriage of justice must be prevented. The Court found compelling reasons to interfere with the High Court's judgment, which was deemed unreasonable and based on surmises rather than evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial Court's conviction of the respondents. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to surrender to custody to serve the remainder of their sentence.