Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted an accused of murder and hurt charges after finding material contradictions, suppression of the incident’s genesis, unexplained injuries on the accused and doubts about the FIR. The injured witness’s recalled evidence, corroborated elsewhere and not treated as hostile by the prosecution, could not be rejected merely on suspicion that he had been won over. These exceptional defects justified interference with concurrent convictions. Immediate release was directed unless the accused was required in another case.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the true occurrence despite conflicting accounts, delayed FIR and unexplained injuries on the accused.
- Whether the evidence warranted interference with concurrent convictions for murder and hurt.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860Neither murder nor the separate hurt charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt on the materially deficient prosecution evidence. The injured witness attributed his own injury to the deceased. (¶¶ 1, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36)
Held
- The accounts disclosed a mutual fight, earlier police inquiry and recording of statements before the ambulance, materially conflicting with the later FIR narrative. Suppression and the unexplained delay undermined the prosecution version on this record. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The recalled evidence of PW2 could not be discarded on an unsupported assumption that he had been won over, particularly where the prosecution had not declared him hostile and other evidence corroborated him. (¶¶ 12, 24)
- Irregular arrest alone does not defeat a prosecution otherwise proved by cogent evidence. Here it had to be considered with active suppression and the other defects in investigation. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- The accused’s hospital records and treating doctor were not produced, although his injuries in the same occurrence were admitted. The unsupported assertion of simple injuries caused by bystanders did not discharge the prosecution’s duty to explain them in these circumstances. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Absence of motive alone would not defeat reliable ocular evidence, but the direct evidence here was unsatisfactory. The injured witness’s attribution of his injury to the deceased also defeated the Section 324 charge. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- The cumulative defects and perverse treatment of material evidence justified exceptional interference with concurrent findings. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
Result
Appeal allowed. Convictions and sentences set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.