Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted the three appellants of murder liability based on an alleged unlawful assembly. Material inconsistencies undermined the principal eyewitness, an important accompanying witness was not examined, and the copied CCTV material neither reliably established its provenance nor identified the assailants. Police-custody confessions could not fill those gaps. The prosecution failed to establish the appellants’ shared common object or relevant knowledge.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness, electronic material and custodial statements proved the appellants’ participation beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the evidence established vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860The prosecution failed to prove the appellants’ participation with the requisite common object or knowledge supporting liability for the murder. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10, 11)
- Sections 25, 26 and 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The custodial confessions relied upon were inadmissible; discovery evidence is confined to the information distinctly connected with the discovered fact. (¶ 9.6)
- Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The copied CCTV material and its certification were examined amid deficiencies in source evidence and handling; the footage did not permit identification of faces or vehicle numbers. (¶¶ 9.4, 9.5)
Held
- The principal eyewitness’s identification and versions contained material inconsistencies. Failure to investigate or examine the person accompanying the deceased, together with those contradictions, left serious gaps in proof against these appellants. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3)
- The copied footage had serious source and handling deficiencies: the recording devices were not produced or seized, relevant witnesses were not examined, and the faces and motorcycle numbers were not identifiable. It could not reliably support the convictions. (¶¶ 9.4, 9.5)
- Confessions recorded in police custody could not be relied on against the appellants under Sections 25 and 26. The limited discovery principle did not validate the confessions relied upon here. (¶ 9.6)
- A separate overt act is not indispensable where unlawful-assembly membership and the statutory common-object or knowledge requirements are proved. Here the earlier quarrel involved others, and the evidence did not establish the necessary common object or knowledge connecting these appellants with the killing. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeals allowed; appellants’ convictions set aside and they were acquitted. Release forthwith directed unless required in another case.