2017 (11) TMI 2045 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking remedial intervention - application for premature release from the jail - Scope of expression proved , disproved and not proved - allegation of murder - HELD THAT - The quintessence of the enunciation is that the expression proved , disproved and not proved , lays down the standard of proof, namely, about the existence or non-existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man, so much so that while adopting the said requirement, as an appropriate concrete standard to measure proof , full effect has to be given to the circumstances or conditions of probability or improbability. It has been expounded that it is this degree of certainty, existence of which should be arrived at from the attendant circumstances, before a fact can be said to be proved. It is on the touchstone of this legal exposition that the evidence in the case in hand, has to be appreciated. Admittedly, PW1 is the solitary eye witness to the incident. He is related both to the deceased and the Accused-Appellant. Whereas the deceased is his uncle, the Appellant is his cousin brother. He claims to have accompanied the Appellant from the video show till the place of occurrence. At the relevant time, he was admittedly intoxicated. The testimony of PW1 with regard to the illicit relationship between the Accused persons, his revelation to the mother of the deceased that he and the co-accused were seen in a compromising position in their house with the door open and the reprimand of the mother (PW3) for the secret talks between them (Accused persons) lack in persuasion to conclude that the prosecution had been able to prove such relationship and therefore, the motive for the murder by them - Dehors testimony of PW1, and the motive as alleged by the prosecution, there is no other tangible and clinching material on record in support of the charge against the Appellant and the co-accused. The inference of motive by the High Court drawn from the evidence of PW1 and PW3, in the overall perspective as discussed hereinabove, is apparently flawed. The unhesitant opinion is that the evidence of PW1, as a witness of incident of murder, as projected by him is wholly unacceptable being fraught with improbabilities, doubts and oddities inconceivable with normal human conduct or behaviour and, thus cannot be acted upon as the basis of conviction - Appellant and the co-accused are thus entitled to the benefit of doubt in the singular facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant is acquitted and is ordered to be set at liberty if not required in connection with any other case - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Acquittal under Section 203 IPC.
3. Delay in filing the FIR.
4. Reliability of the sole eyewitness (PW1).
5. Motive for murder based on alleged illicit relationship.
6. Corroboration of medical evidence with the eyewitness testimony.
7. Evaluation of hearsay evidence from PW5, PW6, and PW8.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC along with Section 34 IPC by both the Trial Court and the High Court. The Trial Court emphasized the testimony of PW1, who claimed to have witnessed the murder and provided details about the extra-marital relationship between the accused. The High Court affirmed the conviction, relying on the testimony of PW1 and PW3, the mother of the deceased, who testified about the illicit relationship and the motive for the murder.

2. Acquittal under Section 203 IPC:
Both the appellant and the co-accused were acquitted under Section 203 IPC by the Trial Court. Although the State appealed against this acquittal, the High Court affirmed their exoneration.

3. Delay in filing the FIR:
The FIR was filed six days after the incident, which the defense argued rendered the prosecution case unworthy of credit. The High Court accepted the explanation that PW1 delayed disclosing the incident due to threats from the appellant.

4. Reliability of the sole eyewitness (PW1):
The defense argued that PW1's testimony was wholly unbelievable due to several factors: his intoxicated state, his unexplained silence during the incident, and the improbability of witnessing the crime from a distance of 15 cubits in an unlit area. The Supreme Court found PW1's conduct during and after the incident highly improbable and his testimony fraught with inconsistencies, thus deeming it unreliable.

5. Motive for murder based on alleged illicit relationship:
The Trial Court discarded the prosecution's case of an illicit relationship as the motive for the murder, while the High Court accepted it. The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence regarding the illicit relationship and the motive unpersuasive, noting that the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 lacked the necessary degree of certainty.

6. Corroboration of medical evidence with the eyewitness testimony:
The medical evidence indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to constriction of the neck and not hanging, which aligned with PW1's account. However, due to the inherent improbabilities in PW1's testimony, the Supreme Court did not consider it safe to base the conviction on this evidence alone.

7. Evaluation of hearsay evidence from PW5, PW6, and PW8:
The testimonies of PW5, PW6, and PW8, who reported the incident based on PW1's disclosures, were deemed hearsay and not substantive evidence. The Supreme Court found these testimonies insufficient to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence of PW1 was unreliable and fraught with improbabilities, doubts, and inconsistencies. The testimonies of other witnesses and the medical evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appellant and the co-accused were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty if not required in connection with any other case.