1985 (7) TMI 238 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence under Section 302/34 IPC for causing murder of the deceased Raghumani Singh Held that - We are satisfied that in the instant case the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in making a local inspection. These are the main reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for having acquitted the accused and rejecting the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 who were independent witnesses. For the reasons given above we are satisfied that the judgment of the Sessions Judge is perverse and based mainly on surmises and conjectures without any attempt to appreciate the evidence in a proper and scientific manner. We are also satisfied that this is not a case where two views on the evidence could be reasonably possible. We therefore find no merit in these appeals. We uphold the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court and dismiss the appeals.

Summary

Issues:
1. Evaluation of eyewitness testimony.
2. Consideration of discrepancies in witness accounts.
3. Analysis of the trial court's reasoning for acquitting the accused.
4. Examination of the legality of local inspection by the Sessions Judge.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the evaluation of the eyewitness testimony provided by PW 1 and PW 2, who were friends of the deceased and witnessed the murder. The prosecution's case relied heavily on their accounts to establish the guilt of the accused individuals. The witnesses identified the assailants during a T.I. parade and also in court, corroborating their credibility. The defense's stance of complete denial was countered by the consistent identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses.

2. The trial court's acquittal of the accused was based on trivial discrepancies in the witness testimonies. The Sessions Judge questioned the witnesses' ability to identify the accused, disregarding the opportunities they had to observe them before the incident. The timing of events and locations was also scrutinized, with the judge raising doubts about the feasibility of certain sequences of events. However, the Supreme Court criticized these discrepancies as mere speculation and emphasized the promptness of the FIR filing, indicating no time for concoction.

3. The Sessions Judge's reasoning for acquitting the accused was deemed flawed by the Supreme Court. The Judge's reliance on minor discrepancies and assumptions regarding the witnesses' actions and the feasibility of events was considered inadequate. The Court highlighted that the Sessions Judge's conclusions were based on surmises rather than a proper evaluation of the evidence. The lack of concrete evidence to support the acquittal decision was a significant factor in overturning it.

4. The legality of the local inspection conducted by the Sessions Judge was also questioned. The Supreme Court emphasized that such inspections should not replace evidence and are meant for appreciating the spot's position. By exceeding his jurisdiction and potentially biasing his views based on the inspection, the Sessions Judge erred in his approach. The Court cited precedent to underscore the limitations of judicial observations that cannot be tested through cross-examination.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found the Sessions Judge's judgment to be perverse, based on conjectures, and lacking a proper appreciation of the evidence. The dismissal of the appeals and upholding of the convictions by the High Court underscored the Court's dissatisfaction with the lower court's reasoning and highlighted the importance of a thorough and scientific evaluation of evidence in criminal cases.