Summary
The Court acquitted both appellants of murder, disappearance-of-evidence and Arms Act charges. Material changes in the prosecution narrative, unreliable last-seen witnesses and doubtful weapon recoveries left the circumstantial case unproved. The ballistic report had also not been put to the accused concerned under Section 313 CrPC and was excluded. Concurrent convictions could not stand where the evidence had not been properly tested.
Issues
- Whether the changing prosecution narrative and last-seen witnesses proved the circumstantial case beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the alleged pistol and knife recoveries were reliable on the combined circumstances.
- Whether the ballistic report could be considered when it was not put to the accused in his Section 313 examination.
- Whether the concurrent convictions, including the Arms Act convictions, could stand.
Provisions considered
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The ballistic report connecting the seized pistol to the cartridge was not put to Shabbir in his examination; the Court therefore excluded it from consideration in this case. (¶¶ 7, 14, 32)
Held
- An FIR need not catalogue every fact or witness. Here, however, conflicting accounts of how the police learnt of the body, subsequent additions to the food-delivery narrative, and replacement of the initially suspected Govind by Shabbir raised a serious concern that the case evolved through suspicion or police suggestions. The witnesses required careful scrutiny even without proof of personal animosity against the accused. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The last-seen case depended principally on PW-2 and PW-5. PW-2 disclosed the allegedly incriminating encounter only after three and a half months. His explanation of fear was unconvincing because he remained silent long after the accused’s arrest, and his late-night presence was not satisfactorily explained. The combined deficiencies made his account unreliable. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- A chance witness’s evidence requires close scrutiny and a satisfactory explanation of presence. PW-5’s account of leaving the cinema to avoid paid toilets was contradicted by evidence that toilets were free. His inconsistent account of the persons present and the circumstances of his police statement compounded the doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the last-seen circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- The alleged recoveries were unsafe to rely on cumulatively: no record supported receipt of the advance information, no attempt was made to obtain a public witness despite a nearby locality, and the arrest-site plan was delayed and omitted a material feature. The evolving implication of Shabbir and the father’s evidence about police involvement in the second report added to those doubts. The ruling did not rest merely on absence of a public witness. (¶ 31)
- The ballistic report was not put to Shabbir under Section 313 and had to be left out of consideration. With unreliable connecting witnesses and recoveries, the courts below had failed to evaluate the evidence by the proper principles and their concurrent conclusions could not be sustained. (¶¶ 7, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Both appeals were allowed and the trial and High Court judgments set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges, including the separate Arms Act charges. Those on bail need not surrender and their bonds stand discharged; if not on bail, they must be released unless wanted in another case. (¶¶ 1, 33, 34)
Result
Both appeals allowed; trial and High Court judgments set aside and both appellants acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds discharged; no surrender required. If in custody, release forthwith unless wanted in another case.