Summary
The Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal of three accused whom the trial court had sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Material contradictions, changes in the prosecution account and unexplained investigative omissions prevented proof beyond reasonable doubt. After independently examining the evidence, the Court found no basis to reverse the acquittals. It nevertheless set aside the direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant, having regard to the circumstances, including the two deaths in the incident.
Issues
- When an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal and whether the prosecution evidence justified restoring the convictions.
- Whether the direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant should stand.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaInterference with acquittal requires careful scrutiny of the evidence and the reasons for acquittal; the High Court’s view was justified here. (¶¶ 25-30, 54-58)
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellate court can fully reappreciate evidence, while respecting the presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal and the rule governing two reasonable views. (¶ 25-30)
Held
- An appellate court has power to review and reappreciate the evidence underlying an acquittal. That power must be exercised with regard to the presumption of innocence, reinforced by acquittal; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be displaced merely because another view is available. (¶ 25-30)
- The prosecution account suffered material contradictions concerning the accused’s presence and roles, the genesis and sequence of the occurrence, the written report and the explosions. Unexplained delays in recording important eyewitness statements and the absence of an injury report for an allegedly injured witness added to the doubts. These were foundational defects rather than minor discrepancies. (¶ 31-54)
- The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, including the informant’s failure to support the prosecution account. On reappreciation, the High Court’s reversal of the convictions and acquittal of the accused was justified. (¶ 54-56)
- Although the informant failed to support the prosecution during trial, the circumstances, including two deaths in an incident not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, warranted setting aside the direction to initiate perjury proceedings against him. The remainder of the acquittal judgment was affirmed. (¶ 57-58)
Result
Appeals partly allowed solely to set aside the direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant; acquittals affirmed.