2022 (7) TMI 1374 - SC - Indian Laws

Order of acquittal passed on a scrutiny of evidence before it by the District and Sessions Judge, got overturned by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi - existence of motive along with the recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act - HELD THAT - Having accepted the views of the trial Court holding that the last seen theory has not been proved, a conviction cannot be rendered on the basis of evidence, which was rejected qua motive, through the mouth of PW2. The trial Court gave its reasons for rejecting the evidence of PW2. It had the advantage of seeing and assessing the demeanor of this witness, which the High Court did not have. PW2 has stated that there was a money transaction which led to a dispute between the accused and the deceased and that he had assured the appellant that it would be repaid. This also occurred few days before the date of occurrence. When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no sufficient link to come to the irresistible conclusion pointing the guilt only to the appellant. Much reliance has been made on the recoveries made. When the observation Mahazar was prepared along with the sketch and the inquest conducted, admittedly, scores of persons were present. No independent witness was made to sign and the evidence on behalf of the prosecution that they did not volunteer to do so, cannot be accepted. A witness may not come forward to adduce evidence at times when asked to act as an eyewitness. However, when a large number of persons were available near the dead body, it is incomprehensible as to how all of them refused to sign the documents prepared by the police - the trial Court rightly doubted the recovery under Section 27 of the Act. There was no need to take PW2 and thereafter make him to sign. There are a lot of contradictions in the evidence rendered. PW2 has stated that many persons were available at the time of the recovery, but no statement has been obtained from any of them. PW11, the Head Constable says that the Investigating Officer PW14, did not ask any neighbor to join the investigation. PW8, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police has deposed that none was forthcoming. A similar statement was also made by the Investigating Officer. The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a scientific evidence in the nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing the offence - there are no perversity in it and the law presumes double presumption in favour of the accused after a due adjudication by the trial Court. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of the evidence, particularly regarding motive and recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Applicability of the last seen theory.
4. Role and interpretation of the Ballistic Expert's report.
5. Legal standards for appellate courts in overturning acquittals.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court acted within legal parameters while reversing the trial court's acquittal. It reiterated the principles governing appellate courts in cases of acquittal, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" and the need for thorough scrutiny. The Court cited several precedents, including *Mohan alias Srinivas v. State of Karnataka* and *N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N.*, underscoring that the High Court must find the trial court's view to be patently illegal or wholly untenable before reversing an acquittal.

2. Evaluation of the Evidence, Particularly Regarding Motive and Recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The trial court had disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 concerning motive and recovery, finding significant contradictions and lack of independent witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court, despite concurring with the trial court on the last seen theory, relied on the same evidence it had rejected. The Supreme Court emphasized that motive assumes greater significance in cases based on circumstantial evidence, referencing *Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Administration*. The Court found that the High Court failed to provide sufficient links to establish the appellant's guilt conclusively.

3. Applicability of the Last Seen Theory:
The trial court and the High Court both found the last seen theory unreliable. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that without the last seen evidence, more concrete and clinching evidence was necessary to implicate the appellant. The trial court had deemed the last seen evidence as an afterthought, a view the High Court accepted as plausible.

4. Role and Interpretation of the Ballistic Expert's Report:
The Ballistic Expert's report was inconclusive regarding whether the firearm belonging to the appellant was used in the crime. The trial court had rightly considered this in favor of the appellant. The Supreme Court reiterated that scientific evidence must be corroborated by substantive evidence, which was lacking in this case.

5. Legal Standards for Appellate Courts in Overturning Acquittals:
The Supreme Court emphasized that appellate courts must be cautious in overturning acquittals, especially when the trial court's view is plausible. The Court cited *Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.*, outlining the stringent tests for circumstantial evidence. It reiterated that mere suspicion cannot substitute for acceptable evidence, referencing *Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar v. State of Maharashtra*.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court did not act within the legal parameters and should have been slower in reversing the trial court's acquittal. It restored the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence and the presence of significant contradictions in the prosecution's case. The appeals were allowed, and the order of conviction by the High Court was set aside.