Summary
The complainant and State challenged acquittal of three principal assailants, while the complainant also challenged the concurrent acquittal of eight others. The Court upheld the latter as a plausible assessment of evidence. For the principal assailants, it found consistent identification and reliable injured-eyewitness evidence, with no material contradictions justifying acquittal. It restored their trial convictions and sentences and directed surrender within four weeks, distinguishing their roles from those of the other accused.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent acquittals of accused 4–11 warranted interference.
- Whether minor discrepancies, witness relationships and the alleged FIR timing discrepancy justified acquitting accused 1–3.
- Whether the different accused could be treated alike despite distinct roles and identification evidence.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe plausible concurrent assessment supporting acquittal of accused 4–11 did not warrant interference in discretionary appellate review. (¶ 8)
Held
- The trial court’s acquittal of accused 4–11, affirmed by the High Court, reflected a plausible view of the evidence. The complainant’s appeal against those acquittals was dismissed. (¶¶ 8, 15)
- The principal assailants were consistently identified, including by an injured eyewitness. Relationship to the deceased did not itself discredit a witness, and the minor discrepancies identified by the High Court did not undermine the prosecution case as a whole. (¶¶ 9-10, 12)
- Although one injured witness could not identify the assailants, his testimony supported the occurrence and manner of attack. The High Court also failed to assess the evidence of another material witness as required in its first-appellate role. (¶¶ 9, 10.1)
- The alleged interpolation in FIR timing had not been raised at trial or put to the relevant witnesses. In the circumstances, the asserted seven-hour delay was not fatal in the face of consistent eyewitness evidence. (¶ 11)
- The roles of accused 1–3 as identified principal assailants differed from those attributed to accused 4–11. The latter’s acquittal did not justify automatically extending the same result to the former. (¶ 13)
- The complainant’s and State’s appeals concerning accused 1–3 were allowed. Their trial convictions under Sections 148 and 302 and sentences were restored, with surrender to undergo the remainder directed within four weeks. (¶ 14-15)
Result
Appeals concerning accused 1–3 allowed; their trial convictions and sentences were restored and surrender directed within four weeks. The complainant’s appeal against the acquittals of accused 4–11 was dismissed.