2018 (12) TMI 2003 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence of Murder - Reversal of acquittal of the Appellants - conviction of Appellants Under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - whether the High Court was right in setting aside the acquittal of the Appellants and convicting them for an offence of murder? HELD THAT - Interference with the judgment of the trial court in this case by the High Court is on a re-appreciation of evidence which is undoubtedly permissible. Though the High Court was aware of the well-settled principles of law in matters relating to appeals against acquittals, it failed to apply the same in their proper perspective. Interference with an order of acquittal is not permissible on the ground that a different view is possible. If the acquittal is justified on a probable view taken by the trial court, it should not be interfered with. The reasons given by the trial court for acquittal mainly pertain to the delay in lodging the FIR, untrustworthy eye witnesses, improbability of identification of the Accused, non-examination of independent witnesses, previous enmity between the Accused and the witnesses, non-production of important prosecution witnesses and improper investigation of the case. On a thorough examination of the entire evidence on record and the judgment of the trial court, we are of the considered view that the judgment of acquittal by the trial court is justified which ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court. The High Court could not have reversed a judgment of acquittal merely because another view is possible. The High Court brushed aside the findings recorded by the trial court relating to certain omissions as being minor and held the omissions should not have been the basis on which the Appellants have been acquitted. The High Court ignored the fact that the presumption of innocence in favour of the Appellants is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. No perversity in the judgment of the trial court in acquitting the Appellants has been demonstrated by the High Court for interfering with the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the trial court is restored. The Appellant No. 3 was released on bail on 30.01.2017. His bail bonds are discharged - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Correctness of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of evidence, including identification of accused and credibility of witnesses.
3. Delay in lodging the FIR and its impact on the prosecution's case.
4. High Court's approach in appeals against acquittals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:

The primary issue in these appeals was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal of the appellants. The trial court had acquitted the appellants, citing several reasons, including the improbability of identification of the accused, delay in lodging the FIR, and lack of independent witnesses. The High Court, however, found the evidence of eye witnesses reliable and concluded that the accused shared a common intention to kill the deceased, leading to their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 of the IPC. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the High Court's interference was warranted, especially given the presumption of innocence reinforced by the trial court's acquittal.

2. Evaluation of Evidence, Including Identification of Accused and Credibility of Witnesses:

The trial court questioned the reliability of the witnesses' identification of the accused due to insufficient lighting and the absence of a seized torch that was allegedly used to identify the accused. The High Court, however, found that there was adequate light from a lantern and fireplace, and deemed the witnesses' testimonies credible despite minor inconsistencies. The Supreme Court emphasized the trial court's advantage in assessing witness credibility firsthand and noted that the High Court should have given due weight to the trial court's findings unless there were substantial and compelling reasons to overturn them.

3. Delay in Lodging the FIR and Its Impact on the Prosecution's Case:

The trial court highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR, suggesting it provided an opportunity for false implication due to existing enmity between the parties. The High Court dismissed this delay as non-fatal to the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court reiterated that the delay, coupled with other inconsistencies and the absence of independent witnesses, justified the trial court's decision to acquit, and such factors should not have been overlooked by the High Court.

4. High Court's Approach in Appeals Against Acquittals:

The Supreme Court reviewed the principles guiding appellate courts in overturning acquittals, emphasizing that acquittals should only be disturbed for substantial and compelling reasons. The High Court's re-appreciation of evidence, while permissible, should not have led to interference merely because a different view was possible. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of the presumption of innocence and the requirement for the appellate court to respect the trial court's findings unless they are palpably wrong or unjust. The High Court's failure to demonstrate any perversity in the trial court's judgment was a significant factor in the Supreme Court's decision to restore the trial court's acquittal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's verdict of acquittal. The decision emphasized the appellate court's duty to exercise restraint in overturning acquittals and reinforced the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the importance of substantial reasons for reversing trial court decisions and the necessity of respecting the trial court's firsthand assessment of evidence and witness credibility.