2002 (12) TMI 661 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge and subsequent conviction by the High Court.
3. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies (PWs. 3 and 7).
4. Motive and alibi of the appellant.
5. Recovery of the weapon.
6. Standard of appellate review in acquittal cases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act:
The appellant, along with three others, was charged with offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and additional penalties.

2. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge and subsequent conviction by the High Court:
The Sessions Judge acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case. The High Court, upon appeal, convicted the appellant while dismissing the State's appeal against the acquittal of the other accused. The High Court found the appellant guilty based on eyewitness testimonies and the recovery of the weapon.

3. Reliability of eyewitness testimonies (PWs. 3 and 7):
The trial court doubted the reliability of PWs. 3 and 7 due to inherent improbabilities in their testimonies. It questioned why the accused would reveal themselves if hiding and noted inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts of the shooting. The High Court, however, found their evidence credible and accepted it against the appellant but not against the other accused.

4. Motive and alibi of the appellant:
The trial court found no motive for the appellant, who was employed with the CRPF and visiting his sister en route to a transfer, to participate in the murder. The appellant claimed he left the village early on the day of the incident to join duty in Tripura, which the trial court found credible. The High Court dismissed this alibi and accepted the prosecution's motive theory.

5. Recovery of the weapon:
The trial court doubted the recovery of the weapon at the appellant's instance, noting prior searches of the location yielded no weapon and the panch witness did not support the recovery. The High Court accepted the recovery as valid evidence against the appellant.

6. Standard of appellate review in acquittal cases:
The Supreme Court emphasized that an appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse, unreasonable, or unsupported by evidence. The High Court's re-appreciation of evidence, leading to a different conclusion without finding the trial court's view perverse or unreasonable, was deemed unsustainable by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to establish its case against the appellant, agreeing with the trial court's assessment. It held that the High Court erred in selectively accepting evidence against the appellant. The judgment and conviction by the High Court were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released if not required in any other case.