Summary
The Court set aside life convictions imposed by the High Court after reversal of a trial acquittal in a police officer’s murder case. The trial court had carefully assessed the evidence and given sustainable reasons for doubting the principal eyewitnesses, medical documents and alleged dying declaration. The High Court failed to answer those reasons or examine the evidence comprehensively. An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence; a plausible acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is available.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly reversed a reasoned acquittal.
- Whether the principal witnesses and medical records reliably established the alleged dying declaration and the appellants’ guilt.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The power to review an acquittal required due weight to the reinforced presumption of innocence and careful examination of the trial court’s reasons. (¶¶ 20-23, 32-33)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaPersonal liberty informed the caution required when considering reversal of an acquittal, without creating an absolute bar to appellate interference. (¶ 20)
Held
- An appellate court may reassess the entire evidence, but must give due weight to the trial court’s opportunity to observe witnesses and the strengthened presumption of innocence following acquittal. Where two reasonable views are possible, the view supporting acquittal must prevail. Unsustainable or perverse acquittals remain open to interference. (¶ 20-23)
- The trial court had examined all the witnesses and explained its doubts about motive, corroborative evidence and the principal eyewitnesses. The first eyewitness’s hostility towards the accused, doubtful presence, conduct and contradictions with the other eyewitness justified caution on these facts. (¶ 24-27)
- The doctor did not remember the deceased identifying the accused and acknowledged issuing the later certificate at police insistence. The contemporaneous case sheet did not record a statement by the deceased identifying his attackers. The defence surgeon’s evidence concerning consciousness also supported the trial court’s doubts. (¶ 28-31)
- The alleged dying declaration depended on witnesses whose evidence had been rejected on cogent grounds. The High Court did not adequately explain why those grounds were wrong, and its inference that the investigating officer favoured the accused because of a proved contradiction was unsupported. (¶ 32)
- The High Court failed to undertake the scrutiny necessary before reversing the reasoned acquittal. Its convictions could not stand. Appellate courts should also exercise caution before condemning trial judges for decisions reached on the evidence. (¶¶ 21-23, 32-33)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court convictions set aside, restoring the trial court’s acquittal.