2018 (3) TMI 2007 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of the accused - prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt - Mens rea - HELD THAT - In the present case, when the facts as to the incident and the role of the Accused could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whether the motive behind the same is dispute regarding boundary wall or political rivalry becomes irrelevant. The prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the Accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court should not have re-appreciated evidences in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities, No specific assertion could be proved regarding the role and involvement of the Accused persons. Further, certain actions of the Victim-Respondents themselves are dubious, for instance admining themselves later in a Multi-speciality hospital without proper cause. It has further come to notice that Respondents have already compromised and have executed a compromise deed to that extent, though the same is not the basis for our conclusion. The conviction order passed by the High Court set aside - the order of acquittal passed by the trial court re-affirmed - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Contradictions in witness statements.
3. High Court's power to interfere in appeals against acquittal.
4. Reliability of evidence and witness testimonies.
5. Motive behind the assault.
6. Recovery of weapons and blood samples.
7. Role and involvement of the accused persons.
8. Actions of the victims post-incident.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Various Sections of IPC:
The appellants were convicted by the High Court under Sections 148, 341, 504, and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The trial court had earlier acquitted the accused, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

2. Contradictions in Witness Statements:
The trial court noted significant contradictions in the statements of key witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 regarding the assault and the participation of the accused. These contradictions were deemed material and could not be overlooked. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's assessment that these inconsistencies weakened the prosecution's case.

3. High Court's Power to Interfere in Appeals Against Acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of acquittal unless there are strong and compelling reasons. This principle was supported by precedents, including Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized that if two views are possible, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused.

4. Reliability of Evidence and Witness Testimonies:
The Supreme Court found that the statements of P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 also contained contradictions. Additionally, most of the witnesses, except P.W. 1 and P.W. 13, turned hostile. The court noted that the statements of these witnesses were not consistent and could not be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused.

5. Motive Behind the Assault:
The prosecution suggested political rivalry as the motive behind the assault. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support this claim. P.W. 14, a key figure in the alleged political rivalry, did not support the prosecution's case and stated that he was out of town during the incident.

6. Recovery of Weapons and Blood Samples:
The trial court and the Supreme Court found issues with the recovery of weapons and blood samples. The panch witnesses to the seizure turned hostile, and the collection of blood samples was questionable given the drizzly weather and the presence of thousands of devotees. The Supreme Court found it unlikely that blood samples could have been collected the next day.

7. Role and Involvement of the Accused Persons:
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of all the accused under Section 149 IPC. The evidence did not conclusively prove the mens rea or actus reus of the accused, making it inappropriate to convict them under this section.

8. Actions of the Victims Post-Incident:
The Supreme Court found the actions of the victims post-incident suspicious. The victims were shifted from a well-equipped hospital (KIMS) to a multi-speciality hospital without clear reasons, which the court interpreted as an attempt to generate incriminating evidence against the accused.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction order and reaffirmed the trial court's order of acquittal. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the High Court should not have re-appreciated the evidence in its entirety. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were ordered to be released from custody forthwith.

← Previous Next →