Summary
Eight accused convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for a double murder were acquitted because none of the injured eyewitnesses identified any accused in Court by ascribing a role, the material omissions in their police statements amounted to contradictions under the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC, and their versions differed. An eyewitness who claims to know the accused must identify them in the dock; without that the prosecution cannot link the deposition to the persons on trial.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt when the eyewitnesses did not identify the accused in Court.
- What is the evidentiary effect of material omissions in the eyewitnesses' police statements and of delay in recording some of those statements.
Provisions considered
- Section 162, Explanation, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The omissions brought out in the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses were so relevant that, under the Explanation to Section 162, they constitute contradictions, weakening the testimony on which the conviction rested. (¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23)
- Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Offences for which the nine accused were convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction affirmed by the High Court, with life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149; the appellants (accused nos. 1 to 8) were acquitted of all of them as guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 25, 26)
Held
- Where an eyewitness knew the accused before the incident, he must identify the accused sitting in the dock as the same persons he saw committing the crime; where he did not know them, a test identification parade is normally necessary, and an identification in Court years later without one is vulnerable. A statement in examination-in-chief that the witness saw named persons commit the offence is not sufficient to link it to the accused unless the witness identifies them in Court, including identifying which accused played which role; unless this is done the prosecution cannot establish that the accused on trial are the persons named. (¶ 21)
- None of the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8) was called upon to identify the accused present in Court or did so by ascribing roles; two of them merely acknowledged in cross-examination that accused named by them were sitting in Court. This failure was fatal to the prosecution case. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23)
- Material omissions brought out in cross-examination of each eyewitness regarding the weapons held and the roles of specific accused were so relevant that they amounted to contradictions under the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC, and the eyewitness accounts differed from one another. (¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23, 24)
- The police statements of PW-4 and PW-5 were recorded about three weeks after the incident although the witnesses were available, and PW-3 admitted his statement was incomplete and could not say when his further statement was recorded, which the prosecution did not bring on record. (¶¶ 12, 13, 16, 17)
- The guilt of the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; before being released on bail by the Supreme Court they had undergone nine to ten years of actual sentence and had been on bail for about twelve years. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's judgment dated 10.09.2010 confirming the convictions was quashed and set aside; the appellants (accused nos. 1 to 8) were acquitted of all offences alleged against them and their bail bonds cancelled.