| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Acquittal by High Court, if sustainable – Prosecution case that main accused armed with pistol shot his ex mother-in-law resulting in her death – Other co-accused accompanied the main accused – Motive behind the murder was that the main accused believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle abroad – Conviction and sentence of the main accused u/s. 302 and the co-accused u/ss. 302/34 by the trial court, on basis of the testimonies of the complainant-husband of the deceased and his daughter – However, acquittal by the High Court – Sustainability: Held: Reasons assigned by the High Court for disbelieving the testimonies of the complainant-husband of the deceased and his daughter, cannot be concurred with – There is no suggestion to the complainant, and his daughter that they had some other reason to implicate the main accused falsely, who happens to be the former husband of the elder daughter – On the contrary, the prosecution successfully established that main accused had been nursing a grudge against the deceased, which stands proved – Presence of the complainant at the time of occurrence, his prompt reporting of the crime, and the swift action taken by the police immediately upon receipt of the said report, cumulatively and unequivocally established the prosecution case beyond any doubt – There could not be, in all probabilities, any meeting of the minds within a few minutes after the occurrence, so as to create a false narrative only to implicate main accused – Unfiltered version of the complainant conclusively established the veracity of his subsequent deposition – Overwhelming evidence, to establish the recovery of weapon of crime-pistol along with live cartridges and one empty shell at the instance of the main accused – Submission that none of the neighbours came forward to witness the occurrence totally illogical and a misconceived notion – Thus, the reasons assigned by the High Court while granting acquittal to the main accused totally perverse and as a result of misreading of the evidence on record – Order of acquittal qua main accused u/s. 302 set aside, and that of the trial court convicting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment restored – However, the reasons assigned by the High Court in support of the acquittal of co-accused are possible and plausible – High Court seems right in extending the benefit of doubt qua them. [Paras 24-33, 35, 36] Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Intervention in acquittal orders under: Held: 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, would proceed with great circumspect and would not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save when the impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond any doubt – Where on consideration of the material on record, even if two views are possible, yet this Court, while exercising powers Art. 136 would not tinker with an order of acquittal – 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 would be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to undo the injustice mete out to the victims of a crime. [Paras 15, 18] First Information Report – Prompt lodging of – Significance: Held: Prompt lodging of an FIR helps dispel suspicions related to the potential exaggeration of the involvement of individuals and adds credibility to the prosecution’s argument – Promptly lodged FIR reflects the first-hand account of what happened and who was responsible for the offence in question. [Para 30] Witness – Natural witness, when – Evidentiary value: Held: Incident, which transpires partly within the confines of the house, the family members and close relatives naturally become the witnesses – These individuals cannot be considered incidental witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural witnesses – Typically, a close relative is unlikely to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person – While it is acknowledged that emotions can run high and personal animosity may exist, merely being related does not provide a valid basis for criticism, instead, familial ties often serve as a reliable assurance of truth. [Para 29] |
