Summary
The High Court reversed an acquittal in a charas-seizure case, relying heavily on a bank passbook found in the abandoned car. The Supreme Court held that identification of the fleeing driver and conscious possession were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, restored acquittal and ordered an inquiry into investigative lapses.
Issues
- Whether the appellant was reliably identified as the driver possessing the contraband.
- Whether the High Court properly displaced the trial court’s acquittal.
- What follow-up was required for investigative shortcomings.
Held
- An appellate court has full power to reconsider evidence against acquittal, but should not replace an equally plausible and reasonable acquittal with another view. A merely possible yet unreasonable trial view may be displaced on sound reasons. Here the trial court’s assessment was convincingly reasonable. (¶¶ 13–15, 24)
- The police witnesses did not reliably identify a previously unknown person seen fleeing at night, and no test identification parade was held. The vehicle-loan account and recovered passbook were relevant but did not conclusively identify the driver at interception or prove conscious possession. Failure to explain the passbook could not independently sustain conviction. (¶ 16–21)
- Photographs bearing no date or a different date were unexplained and lacked persuasive value. The remaining evidence did not establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt; grave suspicion could not substitute for proof. (¶ 22–25)
- The Superintendent of Police,Kullu was directed to inquire into investigative omissions, identify those responsible and report the action taken to prevent repetition. The inquiry and report to the Supreme Court were required within three months. (¶ 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court conviction and sentence set aside and acquittal restored. Appellant to be released unless required in another case. SP,Kullu directed to complete the investigative-lapses inquiry and report within three months.