Summary
The Court upheld reversal of an acquittal for a fatal stabbing following a hotel quarrel. The dying declaration and the duty constable’s account described the assailant’s clothing, which matched bloodstained clothes seized from the appellant within hours; the stains also matched the deceased’s blood group. Hostile witnesses and non-examination of other witnesses did not displace that evidence. The trial court had ignored crucial evidence and relied on surmise, warranting appellate correction.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly reversed the trial acquittal.
- Whether identity was proved despite criticism of eyewitness identification and the absence of a test identification parade.
- Whether hostile witnesses and non-examination of other witnesses undermined the prosecution case.
Provisions considered
- Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction and five-year sentence imposed by the High Court for the fatal assault following a quarrel were sustained. (¶¶ 2, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Held
- An appellate court can reconsider the entire evidence but must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence after acquittal. Where two reasonable conclusions are possible the acquittal stands; a perverse acquittal producing miscarriage of justice may be reversed. (¶¶ 11, 23, 24)
- Identity was established by the combined effect of the truthful dying declaration, the duty constable’s evidence, matching apparel recovered promptly from the appellant and blood-group correspondence. The objection concerning the constable’s initial view from behind had to be assessed against the entire record. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21)
- The accompanying officer had been directed to wait elsewhere, while the deceased’s colleague was unavailable owing to military-service exigencies rather than deliberate suppression. Hostile eyewitnesses and panch witnesses did not require rejection of credible constable and investigating-officer evidence consistent with the medical evidence. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22)
- The trial court speculated that the constable had not witnessed the assault and failed to consider crucial evidence. The High Court gave cogent reasons for correcting that perverse acquittal; its Section 304 Part II conviction required no interference. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeal dismissed; Section 304 Part II conviction and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2,000 upheld. Bail bonds cancelled and surrender directed forthwith, with compliance to be secured through the Chief Judicial Magistrate.