2009 (10) TMI 996 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Credibility of eyewitnesses (PW4 and PW5)
2. Interference of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal
3. Evaluation of evidence and natural human behavior
4. Conduct of the initial investigation and further investigation
5. Guilt of the accused under Sections 376, 302, 120B, and 201 of the IPC

Detailed Analysis:

1. Credibility of Eyewitnesses (PW4 and PW5):
The trial court found significant issues with the credibility of PW4 (Ravi) and PW5 (Andy). PW4's evidence was disbelieved due to his silence for four years, the darkness at the crime scene, and his conduct before, during, and after the occurrence. The High Court, however, found that PW4's delay in coming forward was justified due to his young age and fear. Similarly, PW5's evidence was rejected by the trial court due to the delay in his statement and lack of corroboration. The High Court accepted PW5's evidence, explaining the delay by stating that he might have been absent from the village due to fear.

2. Interference of the High Court in an Appeal Against Acquittal:
The Supreme Court emphasized that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be made sparingly and only if the findings are perverse and not possible on the evidence. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an acquittal. The High Court's interference was questioned, especially since the trial court had provided plausible reasons for disbelieving the eyewitnesses.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Natural Human Behavior:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the best check on the veracity of a witness is the test of normal human behavior. The conduct of PW4 and PW5 in not coming forth as witnesses for about four years was deemed unacceptable. The High Court's broad proposition that the response of a witness can vary was rejected, emphasizing that unnatural behavior is a strong circumstance in doubting the story.

4. Conduct of the Initial Investigation and Further Investigation:
The case saw two final reports with differing theories. The first report attributed the rape and murder to Sundaram (A4), while the second report implicated Rathinam (A1) after further investigation. The Supreme Court noted the uncertainty in the prosecution's case due to these differing theories and the fact that PW4 had been declared hostile in the sessions trial against Sundaram.

5. Guilt of the Accused Under Sections 376, 302, 120B, and 201 of the IPC:
The trial court acquitted all the accused due to the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, however, convicted A1 Rathinam and sentenced him under Sections 376, 302, and 201 of the IPC, while maintaining the acquittal of A3 and A5. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misread and wrongly assessed the evidence of PW4 and PW5, leading to the acquittal of Rathinam (A1).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and ordered the acquittal of the appellant. The credibility of the eyewitnesses was found to be questionable, and the High Court's interference in the acquittal was deemed unjustified. The conduct of the initial and further investigations added to the uncertainty of the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of natural human behavior in evaluating witness testimony and upheld the trial court's findings.