9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1412 - SC - Indian LawsAcquittal of all the four Respondents of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - whether a case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 136? Scope of Interference - HELD THAT - There is no gainsaying that once the appellate court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence as it existed before conviction by the Trial Court, stands restored, and this Court, while scrutinizing the evidence, will proceed with great circumspect and will not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save when the impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond any doubt. In other words, where on consideration of the material on record, even if two views are possible, yet this Court, while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, will not tinker with an order of acquittal. STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS SELVI J. JAYALALITHA AND ORS. AND K. ANBAZHAGAN VERSUS SELVI J. JAYALALITHA AND ORS. ETC. AND INDO DOHA CHEMICALS PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS. ETC 2017 (2) TMI 926 - SUPREME COURT does acknowledge that a judgment of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Nevertheless, the caveat is that the court must not shy away from its responsibility to prevent a miscarriage of justice and must intervene when necessary. If the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds, if the High Court allows itself to be misled by distractions, if the High Court dismisses the evidence accepted by the Trial Court without proper consideration, or if the High Court's flawed approach leads to the neglect of vital evidence, this Court is obligated to intervene to uphold the interests of justice and address any concerns within the judicial conscience. An erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case and/or ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice. In such a case, this Court will be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to undo the injustice mete out to the victims of a crime. Acquittal order qua Gurpreet Singh (main accused) - The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place inside the house. When the police reached the spot immediately after the occurrence, the dead body was found lying inside the house near the stairs. It is, thus, natural that the residents in the adjoining houses did not see the occurrence. The shot was fired at close range, and, the people in the neighbourhood obviously did not come to know about the incident. No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on this count. The time of occurrence, i.e., 1.30 p.m., also indicates that most of the people in the neighbourhood were inside their houses and could not be expected outside in the streets keeping in view the hot and humid weather of July as it prevails in the State of Punjab - sustaining the acquittal of Gurpreet Singh, would amount to a travesty of justice and it, thus, warrants interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, which we invoke sparingly. Consequently, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court qua Gurpreet Singh cannot be sustained and is set aside. Acquittal order qua the coaccused - The Investigating Officer has failed to disclose as to how he found these respondents to be connected with the crime during the course of investigation. There is no convincing explanation to implicate them as co accused. There is also not an iota of evidence to suggest that the Respondents (Kashmira Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Harpreet Singh) had any meeting with Gurpreet Singh and/or they had conspired with him for the execution of the crime. There is no specific motive attributed to them. In such circumstances, the High Court seems right in extending the benefit of doubt qua them. The judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, acquitting Gurpreet Singh of the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and that of the Trial Court convicting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment is restored. The bail bonds of Gurpreet Singh, if any, are hereby cancelled - Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing and leave granted. 2. Acquittal of the accused by the High Court. 3. Evaluation of the prosecution's evidence. 4. Presence and credibility of eyewitnesses. 5. Recovery of the weapon. 6. High Court's reasoning for acquittal. 7. Scope of interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136. 8. Acquittal of co-accused. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in filing and leave granted: The Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. 2. Acquittal of the accused by the High Court: The appeals were directed against the High Court's judgment which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The High Court disbelieved the prosecution's witnesses and found discrepancies in their testimonies. 3. Evaluation of the prosecution's evidence: The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) and Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3). The Trial Court found these witnesses trustworthy, supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon, and convicted the accused. The High Court, however, found inconsistencies and acquitted the accused. 4. Presence and credibility of eyewitnesses: The Supreme Court found the presence of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) at his house credible as he made a call to the Police Control Room immediately after the incident. The Court also found the High Court's reasoning for disbelieving Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) untenable, stating it was natural for her to be at her parental home despite being recently married. The Court emphasized the lack of motive for these witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. 5. Recovery of the weapon: The weapon used in the crime was recovered from Gurpreet Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement. The Supreme Court found the recovery of the weapon, corroborated by multiple witnesses, credible and significant. 6. High Court's reasoning for acquittal: The High Court had acquitted the accused on several grounds, including the doubt cast on the presence of the eyewitnesses and the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade. The Supreme Court found these reasons to be flawed and perverse, particularly regarding the presence of Gursewak Singh and Harmandeep Kaur at the scene. 7. Scope of interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136: The Supreme Court reiterated that it would intervene in an acquittal if the High Court's decision was based on irrelevant grounds or if it ignored vital evidence. The Court found the High Court's approach perverse and a miscarriage of justice, warranting interference. 8. Acquittal of co-accused: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the co-accused (Kashmira Singh, Jagdeep Singh, and Harpreet Singh). The Court agreed that there was insufficient evidence to connect these individuals to the crime, noting discrepancies in the identification and lack of clear motive. Conclusion and Directions: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's acquittal of Gurpreet Singh and restoring the Trial Court's conviction and life sentence. The Court directed Gurpreet Singh to surrender and serve the remainder of his sentence. The appeals against the acquittal of the co-accused were dismissed.
|
