Summary
A man was found shot dead in Delhi in May 2011; his father and brother named no suspect but next day pointed to the accused alleging a money dispute. The trial court acquitted, disbelieving the last-seen and motive evidence, finding the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act doubtful because no independent witness signed though many were present, and treating the ballistic report as inconclusive. The Delhi High Court agreed the last-seen theory was unproved yet convicted on motive and recovery. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC the double presumption of innocence requires an appellate court to be slow to reverse a possible view; motive assumes greater importance in a circumstantial case and could not be accepted from a witness the trial court had rejected; suspicion, however strong, is no substitute for proof.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, having concurred with the trial court that the last-seen evidence was unreliable, could reverse an acquittal on the strength of motive deposed by a witness the trial court had disbelieved and recoveries it had found doubtful.
- What is the scope of appellate interference with an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.
- Whether recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and an observation mahazar, signed only by police though many members of the public were present, and an inconclusive ballistic report, could complete a chain of circumstantial evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence into a double presumption; the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence but must ask whether the trial court's view was possible, and where two views are reasonable the one favouring acquittal stands (Jafarudheen, Mohan, N. Vijayakumar, Chandrappa). The High Court did not act within these parameters. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 19)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The recovery of the firearm at the accused's instance was rightly doubted: PW-2 was needlessly taken along to sign, no statement was taken from the many persons present, the police witnesses contradicted each other on the mode of travel to the spot, and there were contradictions about the place of arrest and disclosure. (¶¶ 2, 17)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaArticle 21 aids an acquitted accused in a certain way, reinforcing the caution with which an appellate court approaches reversal of an acquittal. (¶ 9)
Held
- Once the High Court accepted the trial court's finding that the last-seen theory was not proved, far more concrete and clinching evidence was needed. The father (PW-1) deposed that there was no animosity and he knew of no past transaction; the trial court, which had the advantage of observing PW-2's demeanour, gave reasons for rejecting his account of a money dispute, and a conviction could not be built on evidence rejected qua motive. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Motive may pale into insignificance where there are eyewitnesses, but in a case resting on circumstantial evidence it assumes greater importance (Tarsem Kumar). The circumstances must be firmly established, point unerringly to guilt and form a complete chain excluding every other hypothesis (Padala Veera Reddy); there was no sufficient link here, and mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for acceptable evidence (Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar). (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Where scores of persons were present at the inquest and recovery, the prosecution's explanation that none volunteered to sign is incomprehensible and cannot be accepted; the ballistic report, being opinion evidence, must be used with substantive evidence and was inconclusive on whether the appellant's firearm was used. The trial court's threadbare consideration disclosed no perversity. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Delhi High Court's judgments of 17.12.2014 and 24.12.2014 convicting the appellant set aside and the trial court's acquittal restored.