Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and conviction of four accused for murder with a common object and associated offences. The trial court had rejected consistent, medically supported testimony of related witnesses on minor discrepancies. Its findings contradicted the evidence and did not represent a possible view. The intentional collective assault also defeated the alternative request for conviction under section 304 Part II.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly reversed the acquittal on reappraisal of the eyewitness and medical evidence.
- Whether the conviction for murder should be reduced to culpable homicide under section 304 Part II.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An appellate court may reverse an acquittal for good and compelling reasons where the trial findings are perverse and contrary to the evidence. (¶ 9-11)
- Sections 302 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The intentional assault causing death and the accused’s common object supported the murder conviction. (¶ 11)
Held
- An acquittal ordinarily should stand where the trial court has adopted a possible view. Whether that view is possible depends on the particular evidence. Reappraisal may justify reversal for recorded good and compelling reasons when the findings are erroneous, contrary to law and unsupported by that evidence. (¶ 9-10)
- Relationship did not justify rejecting these witnesses, who were related to the accused as well as the deceased. The injured witnesses’ account was consistent on the occurrence and supported by medical and documentary evidence. Minor timing discrepancies did not undermine its material substance. (¶ 11)
- The isolated contradictory medical statement about undigested food did not displace the evidence as a whole; the postmortem findings also supported the prosecution’s timing. The acquittal was consequently perverse rather than a possible evidentiary view. (¶ 11)
- The assault was intentional and the four appellants shared a common object. There was no basis to substitute a conviction under section 304 Part II for murder with section 149 liability. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal dismissed. High Court conviction and sentences of accused 2 to 5 upheld.