Summary
Three accused were acquitted of a 1991 firearm murder near a bus stand. On the State's appeal, the High Court convicted two of them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It relied on one eyewitness (PW-2), corroborated by the alleged recovery of a country-made pistol and a motorcycle. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal. The prosecution had put forward three different versions. The post-mortem requisition named the third accused as the shooter, while a Roznamcha entry described eleven persons holding the deceased. The investigating officer admitted withholding witness statements that went against the prosecution. PW-2 was not of sterling quality. The motorcycle was in fact recovered at the instance of the third accused's son, and the pistol from an open place without a panchnama. The High Court had exceeded the limits of appellate interference.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants on the testimony of a single eyewitness corroborated by recoveries.
- Whether defective investigation and withholding of witness statements made the prosecution case unreliable.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction recorded by the High Court under these provisions was set aside, because the evidence did not establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 2.6, 39, 41)
Held
- An appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only if the trial court's view is perverse or impossible. Where two views are possible, it cannot reverse merely because it finds the other view more probable (Guru Dutt Pathak). (¶ 12)
- The prosecution failed to bring out the true genesis of the occurrence and did not come with clean hands. There were three versions of who fired, and the investigating officer admitted that statements against the prosecution were not produced. Statements said to have been recorded on 23.06.1991 were never placed on record. (¶¶ 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- A conviction can rest on a single eyewitness only if he is wholly reliable (Anil Phukan). Previous enmity is a double-edged sword (Ramashish Rai), and investigative lapses can be ignored only where the remaining evidence is of sterling quality (Sunil Kundu). PW-2's evidence was not of that quality. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38)
- The recoveries could not corroborate PW-2. The motorcycle was recovered at the instance of the third accused's son, not the first accused. The pistol was shown as recovered from an open, accessible place at about the time of arrest, with no panchnama, after the High Court had itself disbelieved the panch witnesses. (¶¶ 19, 34, 39, 40)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's judgment convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside and the trial court's acquittal restored.