2017 (6) TMI 1372 - HC - Indian Laws

Murder - Assault - snatching of jewellery and cash/dacoity - identification of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in test identification parade by only eye witness - presence of other cogent evidences or not - appeal against acquittal - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the identification parade took place after 17.9.2007. In view of the admissions given by PW 1 Chandraprbaha, the identification of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by PW 1 Chandraprabha before the Court cannot be relied upon. There is no other cogent and clinching evidence on record to connect any of the respondents to the crime. Looking to the evidence on record, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, there are a plethora or decisions of the Supreme Court which hold that the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different possible view may arise on the evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair 2002 (11) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. The order of acquittal need not be interfered - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against acquittal under Sections 396 and 397 of IPC based on identification evidence.

Analysis:
1. Identification Evidence: The appeal was filed against the acquittal of the respondents accused of offenses under Sections 396 and 397 of the IPC. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW 1 Chandraprabha, who identified respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in a test identification parade. However, it was revealed that these respondents were shown to her in a lockup by the police, casting doubt on the reliability of her identification. The Court noted that the identification parade occurred after the police intervention, leading to the conclusion that the identification of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 could not be trusted based on PW 1's admissions. As a result, there was a lack of substantial evidence linking any of the respondents to the crime beyond the identification issue.

2. Standard of Review in Appeals Against Acquittal: The High Court emphasized the standard of review in appeals against acquittal, highlighting that the appellate court should not interfere merely due to the existence of a different possible view on the evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court's stance in C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, it was established that if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's findings. In this case, the High Court determined that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was reasonable and plausible, thereby declining to intervene in the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the decision of the lower court.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the acquittal of the respondents under Sections 396 and 397 of the IPC primarily due to the unreliable identification evidence provided by the sole eyewitness. The Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the standard of review in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.