Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh - (Supreme Court) (09 Nov 2016)

Court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with order of acquittal

MANU/SC/1437/2016

Criminal

Instant appeal arises out of judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court for the offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and convicted the Appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Issue in present case is regarding scope of interference by appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal and whether High Court was justified in convicting accused under Section 302 of PC by reversing order of acquittal passed by trial Court.

In criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent Court after a full-fledged trial, and once trial Court by cogent reasoning acquits accused, then reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on appellate Court while dealing with appeal. It is settled law that there are no fetters on power of appellate Court to review, re-appreciate and reconsider evidence both on facts and law upon which order of acquittal is passed. But Court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with order of acquittal. Appellate Court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.

On analysis of judgment impugned, it was evident that, High Court has not recorded any reasons for partly setting aside judgment of trial Court which has acquitted all accused persons from same set of facts before it. High Court which has set aside acquittal order of trial Court has observed that, Trial Court has based its reasoning on guess work. Apex Court found that, even the High Court has committed same mistake and basing on same facts and guess work has arrived at conclusion that, Appellant was guilty.

A contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually treated as conclusive. Merely the seizure of gun and cartridges from Appellant, ongoing enmity between parties on account of various criminal litigations and altercation and exchange of heated words between rival groups on morning of same day, cannot establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in process of evaluation of evidence. However, where medical evidence goes far that it completely Rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

In view of contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses coupled with unmatched medical evidence, delay in recording of statements of witnesses by I.O., non-availability of proper site plan and in absence of authenticated ballistic expert report that, bullet had been fired with seized gun of Appellant, trial Court had to decide case against prosecution and discharge Appellant from charges. Both the Courts below formed a common opinion that, prosecution has failed to prove charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code against co-accused and discharged them from those charges. Disagreement between trial Court and High Court is only in respect of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against Appellant.

It is duty of Apex Court to separate chaff from husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is but natural for human beings to state variant statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such statements. Approach of Investigating Officer in recording statements of witnesses, collecting evidence and preparation of site map has remained unmindful. Investigating Officer, dealing with a murder case, is expected to be diligent, truthful and fair in his approach and his performance should always be in conformity with police manual and a default or breach of duty may prove fatal to the prosecution's case. In present case, investigation was carried out with unconcerned and uninspiring performance. There was no firm and sincere effort with needed zeal and spirit to bring home guilt of the accused. There are no compelling and substantial reasons for High Court to interfere with order of acquittal, when prosecution has miserably failed to establish guilt of accused. Accused has already undergone nine years' of imprisonment and it is a fit case inviting interference by this Court. Accordingly, Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court convicting accused.

Relevant : Sections 148 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Tags : ACQUITTAL APPELLATE COURT INTERFERENCE SCOPE