Summary
Two men were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for killing a young man with a dao in a market. The conviction rested only on his father and stepmother, who claimed to have seen one accused hold him while the other struck. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. The High Court explained the parents' conduct, going home, eating and sleeping after seeing their son attacked, by the deceased's history of drunken quarrels. The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants. Such conduct, together with the parents telling the elder son of the incident only after he found the body and the next-morning FIR, made their claim to be eyewitnesses unbelievable. The courts below had brushed aside reasonable doubt on unacceptable reasoning.
Issues
- Whether a murder conviction could rest on the testimony of the deceased's parents as eyewitnesses when their conduct after the alleged assault was wholly unnatural and no independent witness supported the prosecution
- When the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction for murder in furtherance of common intention was set aside because the eyewitness evidence was unreliable. (¶¶ 1, 20, 22)
Held
- Concurrent findings are ordinarily not disturbed under Article 136. The Court will interfere where they are vitiated by error of law or procedure, misreading of evidence or disregard of judicial norms causing miscarriage of justice, as here. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- It is not believable that parents who saw their son being attacked with a dao, the father fainting at the sight of blood, would go home, eat and sleep without seeking help. The deceased's alleged history of quarrels cannot explain that conduct, and the High Court's reasoning on this point was unacceptable. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Coupled with the parents disclosing the incident to the elder son only after he had seen the body, and the FIR being lodged the next morning, their testimony could not be accepted as eyewitness evidence. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- A reasonable doubt is a fair doubt grounded in reason and common sense arising from the evidence, and its benefit must go to the accused. The trial court's assumption that the parents had no reason to implicate anyone but the real culprits did not fit the facts. Although the deceased was brutally assaulted, the appellants were not proved beyond reasonable doubt to be the assailants. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; the conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and the life sentence were set aside, the appellants were acquitted and directed to be released if in custody.