9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1563 - SC - Indian LawsOverturning of order of acquittal against A-14 to A-16 - witnesses who spoke about these Accused s presence failed to consider the import of Section 149 Indian Penal Code - Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal - Delay in sending the (FIR) First Information Report to the Magistrate - Delay in Recording the Statement Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure - Recovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal - HELD THAT - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court s view can be termed as a possible one particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused. Thus the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore the presumption in favour of the Accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the Accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. Delay in sending the (FIR) First Information Report to the Magistrate - HELD THAT - The first information report in a criminal case starts the process of investigation by letting the criminal law into motion. It is certainly a vital and valuable aspect of evidence to corroborate the oral evidence. Therefore it is imperative that such an information is expected to reach the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest point of time to avoid any possible ante-dating or ante-timing leading to the insertion of materials meant to convict the Accused contrary to the truth and on account of such a delay may also not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity there is also a danger creeping in by the introduction of a coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. However a mere delay by itself cannot be a sole factor in rejecting the prosecution s case arrived at after due investigation. Ultimately it is for the Court concerned to take a call. Such a view is expected to be taken after considering the relevant materials. Delay in Recording the Statement Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - The Investigating Officer is expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration of a cognizable offense. An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution s case but only to be considered by the Court on the facts of each case. There may be adequate circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time. However non-examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. It only causes doubt in the mind of the Court which is required to be cleared - Similarly a statement recorded as in the present case the investigation report is expected to be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. A long unexplained delay would give room for suspicion. Recovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - HELD THAT - Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24 to 26. Admissibility Under Section 27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody Accused of an offence - The onus is on the prosecution to prove the fact discovered from the information obtained from the Accused. This is also for the reason that the information has been obtained while the Accused is still in the custody of the police. Having understood the aforesaid object behind the provision any recovery Under Section 27 will have to satisfy the Court s conscience. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the Accused by other means. The Court will have to be conscious of the witness s credibility and the other evidence produced when dealing with a recovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is a structured pattern in the recovery of A-10 to A-13. There appears to be some anxiety on the part of the prosecution to make compulsory recoveries. The recoveries are said to have been made from the house of P.W. 21 having no connection with A-10. The fallacious notion that the recovery of such an incriminating Article was made from a place that might also be accessible to the P.W. 21 is also one of the doubts we sense in the following factual analogy of this case. P.W. 21 is also the same witness who has given his 161 Code of Criminal Procedure statement nine days after the incident pertaining to the Accused. The conviction rendered by the High Court against the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 430-431 of 2015 arrayed as A-10 to A-13 stands set aside. Consequently the appeals filed by Accused Nos. A-10 to A-13 being Criminal Appeal No. 430-431 of 2015 are allowed by setting aside the judgment rendered by the High Court and restoring the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. Bail bonds if any pertaining to A-10 to A-13 stand discharged.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of convictions and reversal of acquittals by the High Court. 2. Delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and its implications. 3. Delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Evidentiary value of recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 5. Evaluation of eye-witness testimonies and their credibility. 6. Application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding common object. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Convictions and Reversal of Acquittals by the High Court: The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's decision, which confirmed the convictions of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 while reversing the acquittals of A-10 to A-13. The High Court held that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should be ignored due to the support from recoveries and scientific evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court must be cautious in reversing acquittals, especially when the trial court's view is plausible and based on thorough analysis. 2. Delay in Lodging the FIR and Its Implications: The Supreme Court noted the importance of promptly lodging the FIR to avoid any possibility of ante-dating or insertion of fabricated materials. However, it also acknowledged that mere delay does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case. The Court found no deliberate delay in this case, as the FIR was registered at 11:00 p.m. and reached the Magistrate by 4:15 p.m. the next day. The Court accepted the reasoning that the delay was not willful and did not create suspicion. 3. Delay in Recording Witness Statements Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The Court highlighted that unexplained delays in recording witness statements could cast doubt on the prosecution's case. In this case, the statements of key witnesses were recorded with significant delays, raising questions about their reliability. The Court found that the delayed statements of P.W. 21 and P.W. 46, recorded nine and two days after the incident respectively, were not sufficiently credible to support the prosecution's case against A-10 to A-13. 4. Evidentiary Value of Recoveries Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act: The Supreme Court scrutinized the recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the need for credible evidence. The Court found that the recoveries from A-10 to A-13 were not convincingly proved. For instance, the recovery witnesses were not from the locality, and there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. The Court concluded that the recoveries appeared to be manipulated, thus lacking credibility. 5. Evaluation of Eye-Witness Testimonies and Their Credibility: The Court assessed the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, and others, noting inconsistencies and the inability to identify certain accused. The trial court had found these testimonies credible for A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9 but not for A-10 to A-13. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that merely being family members or chance witnesses does not invalidate their testimonies if they are otherwise credible. However, the testimonies against A-10 to A-13 were found inconsistent and unreliable. 6. Application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Regarding Common Object: The High Court had relied on Section 149 IPC to convict A-10 to A-13, asserting that minor discrepancies should be overlooked. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the foundational facts for invoking Section 149 were not sufficiently proved. The trial court's view that the evidence did not establish the presence of A-10 to A-13 was deemed plausible. The Court emphasized that the appellate forum should not substitute its views for those of the trial court without substantial reasons. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9, confirming their convictions. However, it allowed the appeals of A-10 to A-13, setting aside their convictions and restoring the trial court's acquittal. The Court highlighted the importance of credible evidence, the proper application of legal principles, and the need for caution in reversing acquittals.
|
