Summary
In appeals arising from a politically motivated killing, the Court distinguished accused whose convictions were concurrent from four whose trial acquittals the High Court had reversed. It sustained the convictions of accused 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 on the accepted eyewitness and supporting evidence. For accused 10–13, identification deficiencies, delayed statements and doubtful recoveries supported the trial court’s reasonable view. Their acquittals were restored.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent convictions warranted interference.
- Whether the High Court properly reversed the acquittals of accused 10–13 in light of identification evidence and recoveries.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An appellate court reviewing acquittal must respect the strengthened presumption of innocence and a reasonable possible view of the evidence. (¶¶ 25, 36-38)
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Common-object liability required proof of foundational facts; it could not cure the failure reliably to establish the presence of accused 10–13. (¶ 37)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The prosecution had to prove a credible discovery attributable to information from the accused; the particular recoveries did not justify reversing acquittal. (¶¶ 30-31, 39-43)
Held
- The appellate power to reconsider evidence on acquittal is extensive, but acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. Where the trial court’s conclusion is a reasonable possible view, another view preferred by the appellate court is insufficient to displace it. (¶ 25)
- Delay in forwarding an FIR to the Magistrate, or in recording available witnesses’ statements, must be assessed with the explanation and surrounding circumstances. Delay alone does not automatically defeat a prosecution, though unexplained delay can create material suspicion. (¶ 26-29)
- Section 27 permits proof only of information distinctly connected with a consequent discovery. Its use requires proof of the discovery and careful assessment of the credibility of the recovery evidence; the custodial statement is not generally admissible merely because an article was recovered. (¶ 30-31)
- For accused 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9, the courts had adequately considered the FIR delay, injuries to two accused and eyewitness evidence. Relationship to the deceased or presence as a chance witness did not alone justify rejecting reliable testimony. No perversity warranted disturbing their convictions. (¶ 32-35)
- For accused 10–13, the trial court had cogent grounds to doubt identification and presence. Section 149 did not dispense with those foundational facts. Delayed witness accounts and the deficiencies in recovery witnesses, identification and provenance of clothing reinforced the reasonable acquittal view. The High Court had wrongly substituted its assessment. (¶ 36-43)
Result
Criminal Appeals 450–451 of 2015 and 959 of 2015 dismissed, maintaining the convictions of accused 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9. Criminal Appeals 430–431 of 2015 allowed: the High Court convictions of accused 10–13 were set aside, their trial acquittals restored and their bail bonds discharged. Pending applications disposed of.