| Headnote |
Issue for consideration:Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order ofacquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and attempt torape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witness despitecontradictions, only because he was educated and a god fearingperson.Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 376, 511, 454, 380 r/w s.34 – Murderand attempt to rape – High Court convicted the appellant formurder and attempt to rape, setting aside the order of acquittalby the trial courtHeld: Trial court gave substantial reasons for arriving at itsconclusion – However, the High Court was persuaded by thehomicidal death of the deceased while ignoring multiple findingsrendered by the trial court – High Court after holding that a homicidehad occurred, blindly placed reliance upon the evidence of theinformant and misconstrued the concept of reputation and blindlybelieved his evidence – Furthermore, the statement of one of thewitness that there was no prior enmity – Also non-availability ofthe fingerprint report and non-examination of the witnesses thoughthe witnesses were available – Prosecution failed to prove thecharges beyond reasonable doubt, thus, the appellant entitled tothe benefit of doubt – Impugned order passed by the High Courtset aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Para 26, 28-29, 31]Evidence Act ,1872 – s.3 – Fact – Reputation, forming partof facts – Connectivity between reputation and character –Evidentiary value of person’s reputation:Held: Reputation is indeed a fact – Reputation has to be seenfrom the point of view of an identifiable group while characteris what a person really is – Character is to be formed whilereputation is to be acquired – Character may lead to formation ofone’s reputation – Character and reputation do have an elementof interconnectivity but both are distinct and different – Reputationthus forms part of internal facts which arise through thoughtsand feelings such as love, anger, fear, hatred and intention etcand thus, it is required to be proved in the form of opinion ofpersons who form it accordingly – When reputation is to be takenas a relevant fact, its evidentiary value becomes restrictive andlimited – It is indeed a weak piece of evidence when becomesrelatable to a fact in issue – Court cannot declare the reputationof a person based upon its own opinion merely because a personis educated and said to be God-fearing, that by itself will notcreate a positive reputation – Courts are not expected to getcarried away by the mere background of a person especiallywhen his conduct, being a relevant fact, creates serious doubt– Conduct of a witness is a relevant fact to decide, determineand prove the reputation of a witness. [Para 16-18]Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance upon:Held: One has to be circumspect and cautious while undertakingthe exercise of linking the evidence available – Courts shouldnot lose sight of the fact that such evidence should unerringlylead and point out the accused alone, of course, on the factsof each case. [Para 22]Evidence – Double Presumption – Presumption of innocence:Held: When the view of the trial court, which had the benefitof seeing the demeanour of the witnesses, is both a possibleand plausible one, it shall not be replaced by yet another one– Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused getsstrengthened by the decision of the trial court when he gets anorder of acquittal. [Para 23]Witnesses – Material witnesses – Non-examination of:Held: Non-examination of a witness, though material, by itselfwould not vitiate the trial – However, when facts are so glaringand with the witnesses available, particularly when they arelikely to give a different story, the Court shall take adequatenote of it – When a circumstance has been brought to the noticeof the Court by the defense and the Court is convinced thata prosecution witness has been deliberately withheld, as it inall probability would destroy its version, it has to take adversenotice – Anything contrary would be an affront to the conceptof fair play. [Para 24]Evidence – Effect of absconding:Held: Subsequent conduct would be a relevant fact u/s. 8 of theEvidence Act - However, such a fact has to be proved – Mereabsconding by itself cannot constitute a sole factor to convicta person because an accused may abscond as he might fearan illegal arrest. [Para 25] |
