Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of the appellants' acquittal for murder and restored the trial court's acquittal. The three related eyewitnesses behaved unnaturally: they made no attempt to save the deceased and did not report the killing for about 14 hours. The medical evidence showed a single shot, contrary to their account of two, no weapon was recovered, and the chance witnesses were not corroborated.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the three related eyewitnesses was credible, given their conduct during and after the incident.
- Whether the eyewitness account was corroborated by the medical evidence and by recovery of the weapons.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court had convicted the three appellants of murder with common intention. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove their involvement because the eyewitness testimony was unreliable and uncorroborated. (¶¶ 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24)
- Section 27, Arms Act, 1959Two appellants had been convicted for using pistols. Neither pistol was recovered, there was no ballistic or forensic examination, and the one cartridge case seized from the spot could not be linked to any weapon. The conviction fell along with the murder charge. (¶¶ 6, 21, 24)
Held
- To support a conviction, eyewitness testimony must be trustworthy, free from blemish and of sterling quality, and it is the quality of the evidence that matters. Whether a witness is credible is judged by whether his conduct matches the natural reaction of a prudent person. Reviewing earlier decisions, the Court noted that wholly unnatural conduct can justify discarding such testimony, while allowing that people react differently. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Relevant tests of a witness's conduct include whether a relative or friend accompanying the deceased tried to save him, and what steps he took immediately after the offence. Leaving the scene and returning without informing the police or the family is also relevant, as is how promptly the police were told. (¶ 17)
- The son and two nephews of the deceased made no effort to save him. They did not inform the police for about 14 hours, did not tell their own family, and left the body at the spot overnight instead of taking it to a hospital. No explanation was offered for the delay, and this conduct was contrary to that of a prudent person. (¶¶ 9, 18, 19, 20, 23)
- The chance witnesses could not be relied upon because none of the eyewitnesses acknowledged their presence at the scene. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The doctor admitted that the firearm injuries were the entry and exit wounds of a single shot. This belied the account of a second shot by another appellant. With no recovery of the pistols or the knife and no ballistic examination, the eyewitness version could not be corroborated. (¶¶ 9, 21)
- There were further gaps in the investigation. The first Investigating Officer said he received the information by telephone, but the police station had no telephone. The chowkidars posted at the scene overnight were not examined, and no explanation was given for the delayed FIR. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- The High Court's findings rested on a misreading of the evidence and could not sustain the reversal of the acquittal. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment convicting the appellants was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal was restored. The appellants, who had been exempted from surrendering, were not required to surrender.