Summary
The State challenged the acquittal of two respondents accused of participating in a murder conspiracy. The Supreme Court found the alleged extra-judicial confessions unsupported, the witness accounts inadequate and photographs insufficient to establish conspiracy. It declined to disturb the acquittals for want of a compelling reason or substantial infirmity.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established a compelling basis to reverse acquittal of the two respondents.
Provisions considered
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The witness’s statement recorded before a Magistrate was not substantive evidence capable of supplying the basis for conviction after he resiled from his version at trial. (¶ 6)
Held
- The principal witness resiled in cross-examination, and his Section 164 statement could not be treated as substantive evidence to convict. Another witness’s account concerned only the first accused; the bloodstained-clothing evidence did not establish the alleged conspiracy or murder involvement of the respondent. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- The alleged extra-judicial confessions lacked supporting substantive evidence in this case. Photographs of the first accused with the deceased’s wife could at most support the alleged relationship and did not establish her participation in a conspiracy to murder. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The High Court’s finding that guilt of the two respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt disclosed neither a compelling reason nor a substantial infirmity warranting interference with acquittal. (¶ 11)
Result
State’s appeals dismissed; acquittals of accused Nos.2 and 3 upheld.