Summary
In a 1999 clash over farmland in Barpeta, Assam, one man was stabbed to death and others were hurt. The Fast Track Court convicted three accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and others of rioting, hurt and trespass, and the Gauhati High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court acquitted all the surviving appellants. Every prosecution witness was related to the deceased and none was independent, so their evidence needed careful scrutiny. Their accounts of who struck the single fatal blow contradicted each other, and the main injured witness improved on his police statement. Several witnesses had not seen the attack. The investigating officer had neither verified land records nor collected bloodstains. These were material contradictions that the courts below had overlooked, which made their concurrent findings perverse.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellants, resting on related witnesses giving inconsistent accounts of who inflicted the fatal injury, was sustainable.
- When the Supreme Court may interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a criminal appeal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 447, Indian Penal Code, 1860Convictions under these provisions were set aside because the prosecution evidence was too contradictory to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 53, 61)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings may be interfered with where vital evidence is misread or material contradictions are overlooked, rendering the findings perverse. (¶¶ 25, 26, 55, 56)
Held
- Related or interested witnesses are not to be disbelieved for that reason alone, but their testimony must be scrutinised with care, particularly where no independent witness is examined; it may be rejected where it contains material contradictions and improvements. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51)
- The witnesses gave contradictory versions of who gave the single fatal blow, several were hearsay witnesses, and the principal injured witness improved upon his police statement; these were material discrepancies corroding the prosecution case, not normal discrepancies. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 53)
- The investigation was deficient, with no verification of land records and no collection of bloodstains, and the finding that the complainant's party possessed the land rested on conjecture. (¶¶ 45, 47)
- Since the courts below overlooked vital discrepancies, the Supreme Court could reappreciate the evidence despite concurrent findings; the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 58, 59)
Result
Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside and the appellants acquitted of all charges; the appeal of the deceased first accused had abated.