2018 (8) TMI 2166 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction and sentencing of appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 307 449 201 427 143 144 147 148 and 302 of IPC - prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt or not - HELD THAT - Perusing the entire material it is opined that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not supported by any material. He has wrongly read the evidence and not considered the legal aspect involved in the case. Therefore the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below is not in accordance with the material produced in the case. The appellants have made out a case to allow the appeal. The concerned Prison Authorities are hereby directed to release the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The bail bonds executed by the other accused persons stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

• Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 307, 449, 201, 427, 143, 144, 147, 148, and 302 of the IPC.
• Whether the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimonies and material recoveries, was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused.
• Whether the trial court erred in relying on the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
• Whether the alleged motive and circumstantial evidence were adequately established to link the accused to the crime.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Sufficiency of Evidence to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

• Legal Framework and Precedents: The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt should benefit the accused.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the key eyewitnesses (P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 14, 21, and 43) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that when eyewitnesses do not corroborate the prosecution's narrative, the evidence becomes weak.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that none of the eyewitnesses provided consistent testimonies implicating the accused. The statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were not considered substantive evidence as they were given under alleged police pressure.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that in the absence of credible eyewitness testimony, the prosecution's case weakens significantly.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense argued that the evidence was insufficient and unreliable, while the prosecution relied on the Investigating Officer's testimony and circumstantial evidence. The court found the defense's arguments more compelling.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of credible eyewitness testimony and substantive evidence.

Issue 2: Reliance on Investigating Officer's Testimony and Section 164 Statements

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction. The testimony of the Investigating Officer must be corroborated by other evidence.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the trial court erred in heavily relying on the Investigating Officer's testimony and the Section 164 statements, which were not corroborated by other evidence.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the Section 164 statements were given under alleged coercion and pressure from the police, rendering them unreliable.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal principle that such statements require corroboration from independent evidence, which was lacking in this case.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense argued that the reliance on these statements was misplaced, while the prosecution maintained their validity. The court sided with the defense.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the reliance on the Investigating Officer's testimony and Section 164 statements was misplaced and insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Issue 3: Establishment of Motive and Circumstantial Evidence

• Legal Framework and Precedents: Motive and circumstantial evidence must be established with clear and cogent evidence to link the accused to the crime.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the alleged motive was not substantiated by credible evidence. The witnesses who could have supported the motive aspect turned hostile.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the lack of complaints or actions taken by the deceased or their families regarding the alleged motive, weakening the prosecution's argument.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that motive, while not essential, strengthens the prosecution's case when clearly established, which was not the case here.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense argued that the motive was not established, while the prosecution relied on weak testimonies. The court found the defense's arguments more convincing.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish motive and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. cannot be considered as substantive evidence and require corroboration from independent evidence, which is lacking in this case."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reliance on statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. requires corroboration.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused. The reliance on the Investigating Officer's testimony and Section 164 statements was misplaced, and the alleged motive was not established.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were set aside. The accused were acquitted of all charges, and the court directed the release of the appellants if not required in any other case.