Summary
The Supreme Court restored the six appellants’ trial-court acquittals, setting aside the High Court’s convictions. The dying declaration was inadequately proved, with unexplained non-examination of its scribe and other authenticity concerns. Materially inconsistent witnesses, an incomplete circumstantial case and unreliable recoveries did not establish guilt. The trial court’s assessment was a possible view, and the High Court supplied no cogent justification for overturning it.
Issues
- Whether the dying declaration and remaining evidence justified reversal of the trial acquittals.
- Whether the recovered objects reliably connected the appellants to the assault.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872Although a trustworthy dying declaration can alone support conviction, the declaration here failed the required scrutiny of proof, authenticity and surrounding circumstances. (¶¶ 11, 15–20, 29.1)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court examined the discovery requirements but found the commonplace objects recovered from accessible or shared locations unreliable on this record. (¶ 25–28)
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The reinforced presumption of innocence and the trial court’s possible view required cogent grounds before appellate reversal; those grounds were absent. (¶ 30–33)
Held
- A voluntary and reliable dying declaration made in a fit state can sustain conviction without corroboration; a Magistrate’s recording or medical certificate is not invariably indispensable. Its making and reliability must nevertheless be proved. (¶ 11)
- The actual scribe was not examined and no reason explained his absence. Uncertainties surrounding recording, endorsement and persons present undermined confidence in this declaration. (¶¶ 16–20, 29.1)
- The purported eyewitness accounts differed on material circumstances and contained improvements or doubtful opportunities to observe. Taken as a whole they did not establish the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 21–23, 29.3)
- The circumstantial evidence did not form a conclusive chain. Enmity alone established no guilt, and the medical evidence weakened the asserted link between the recovered weapons and injuries. (¶¶ 24, 29.2)
- Recoveries of commonplace sticks and other objects from accessible or shared places, in the circumstances described, did not reliably incriminate the appellants. This assessment was tied to the record and surrounding evidentiary weaknesses. (¶ 25–28)
- The trial court adopted a legally permissible view after examining the evidence. The High Court’s perfunctory reasons did not overcome the strengthened presumption of innocence following acquittal. (¶ 30–33)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court conviction and sentence set aside and trial-court acquittals restored. Fines directed to be refunded and any subsisting bail bonds discharged; interlocutory applications disposed of.