Summary
The High Court reversed an acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC for a night-time knife and lathi assault. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal: the injured witnesses contradicted each other and themselves on who used which weapon, the medical evidence did not fit the oral account, the FIR was lodged by a hearsay witness, the two alleged eye-witnesses were never examined, and no motive was shown. The trial court's view was plausible and should not have been disturbed.
Issues
- Whether the evidence on record justified the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the High Court was right to reverse the trial court's acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860A conviction for attempt to murder needs an intention (or knowledge) coupled with an overt act towards its execution; whether that intent existed is a question of fact. On the contradictory testimony, medical evidence and FIR in this case, the Court found the ingredients not safely proved. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 15, 17)
- Sections 161 and 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The two persons named in the FIR as eye-witnesses never had statements recorded under Section 161, no attempt was made to record their statements under Section 164, and they were not produced at trial. Their absence considerably weakened the prosecution case. (¶ 12)
Held
- A conviction under Section 307 IPC can be justified only where the accused had the intention, coupled with an overt act in aid of its execution; whether there was an intention to kill or knowledge that death might result is a question of fact depending on the circumstances of each case. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The injured witnesses' accounts were inconsistent with the prosecution narrative and with each other on the roles of the accused: one admitted he could not say who stabbed and who used lathis, and the other changed his version in cross-examination about who carried knives. The medical evidence also did not match the oral account of the weapons and injuries. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- The FIR was lodged by a hearsay witness who was not present at the scene, and the two companions he named as eye-witnesses were neither examined by the investigating officer nor produced in court. Their unexplained absence left the discrepancies unresolved and seriously weakened the prosecution. (¶ 12)
- Some discrepancies are natural, especially with a long gap between incident and deposition, but where they create serious doubt about a witness's truthfulness, particularly on the sequence of events, the court may decline to rely on that evidence and must be careful about the risk of false implication. The prosecution's chain of evidence must be as complete as humanly possible and exclude any reasonable conclusion consistent with innocence. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- No motive was attributed to the accused; the injured witnesses themselves said there was no enmity, which added to the doubt about the prosecution narrative. (¶ 15)
- Where the trial court acquits on a plausible view of the evidence that is not perverse and does not overlook or misread the evidence, the appellate court should not overturn the acquittal. The High Court ought to have given weight to the glaring inconsistencies before reversing a well-reasoned acquittal. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 10.12.2009 convicting the appellant set aside and the trial court's acquittal dated 13.10.1995 restored as regards the appellant; bail bonds cancelled.