Summary
The State appealed the High Court’s acquittal of accused charged with a fatal armed attack on a tractor driver. Reviewing inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, omissions, missing evidence and the weapons recovery, the Court found no substantial basis to disturb the acquittal in its limited jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether the evidence and weapons recovery justified Supreme Court interference with the High Court’s acquittal.
- Whether the inconsistencies concerned merely medical opinion or went to the core of the eyewitness version.
Held
- Interference with a High Court acquittal under Article 136 requires substantial and compelling reasons such as perversity or glaring infirmity. A different possible assessment of evidence is insufficient, and acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- The discrepancy about tractor lights alone was insignificant. However, conflicting accounts of firing from the front and from behind after climbing aboard went to the root of the case and left the back-entry gunshot unexplained in the principal witness’s version. This difficulty arose within the oral accounts themselves. (¶¶ 30, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
- The deceased’s wife, an alleged eyewitness, was not examined; another claimed eyewitness turned hostile. Contradictions about the inquest, the complaint’s author and the location of the body, along with the failure to investigate or produce the tractor, strengthened doubt about the prosecution narrative. (¶¶ 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51)
- Although an FIR need not contain every detail, omission of overt acts later attributed to two accused created serious doubt here. The recoveries and ballistic link between a cartridge and a pistol did not establish the prosecution version sufficiently to reverse acquittal in the overall state of the evidence. (¶¶ 50, 54, 55, 56, 57)
Result
State appeals dismissed; the High Court’s acquittal remained undisturbed. The appeal against the deceased second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 had abated.