2012 (9) TMI 1249 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Power of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal.
2. Evidentiary value of related witnesses.
3. Effect of only one surviving accused.
4. Delay in disposal of appeal.

Summary:

1. Power of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal:
The High Court allowed the State's appeal and convicted the remaining accused, setting aside the trial court's acquittal. The Supreme Court reiterated that the appellate court is entitled to re-appreciate evidence and come to an independent conclusion if the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The High Court analyzed the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, and concluded that the prosecution had established the case against the accused.

2. Evidentiary value of related witnesses:
The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased. The Court emphasized that if the statements of such witnesses are credible, reliable, and corroborated by other evidence, they should be accepted. In this case, the testimonies of Nathu Ram (PW-1), Prayag Singh (PW-3), and Mukut Singh (PW-6) were found to be honest and truthful. The trial judge erred in discarding their testimonies, and the High Court was justified in relying on their evidence.

3. Effect of only one surviving accused:
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the sole surviving accused, Shyam Babu, should be exonerated because the other co-accused had died. The Court noted that the evidence showed Shyam Babu's active participation in the gruesome incident, which resulted in the deaths of five persons and injuries to one person. The conviction under Sections 148, 307, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

4. Delay in disposal of appeal:
The Supreme Court dismissed the contention that the delay of 25 years in disposing of the appeal by the High Court should result in the exoneration of the appellant. The Court reiterated that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to criminal proceedings unless expressly provided. The delay in the High Court's decision does not warrant exoneration, especially in a case involving multiple murders and injuries.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing with its reasoning and rejecting the trial court's acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the sole surviving accused, Shyam Babu, were affirmed.