Summary
The Court declined to disturb the High Court’s acquittal of three accused in a shooting case. Doubts about the witnesses’ presence and narrative, a material inconsistency about a scuffle, an unexplained additional firearm injury and missing physical evidence cumulatively undermined the prosecution. Investigative omissions did not automatically benefit an accused, but their significance depended on the surrounding evidence. The acquittal showed no perversity or glaring infirmity warranting interference.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s reversal of the murder and conspiracy convictions warranted interference.
- Whether inconsistencies and unrecovered firearms and cartridge remnants materially undermined the prosecution case.
Held
- The account of sending the deceased for gutkha despite the alleged armed threat, the selection of target and the stated purpose of the visiting witness raised doubts about the naturalness of the prosecution narrative and witness presence. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Minor discrepancies after a long interval need not destroy credibility, but inconsistency about a scuffle integral to the occurrence and failure to explain the additional firearm injury were material in this case. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- Non-recovery of weapons or cartridges did not by itself defeat prosecution. Here the unexplained absence of cartridge remnants despite prompt investigation, coupled with the other evidentiary defects, raised serious doubts about the alleged scene and narrative. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The High Court had independently assessed the evidence and identified material inconsistencies. Its acquittal was neither perverse nor afflicted by a glaring evidentiary infirmity requiring interference under Article 136. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Complainant’s and State’s appeals dismissed. High Court judgment dated 16 November 2018 acquitting accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 affirmed.