2004 JTR(SC) 398
2004 18 AIC 728 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 4607 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 4133 ; 2004 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 2822 ; 2004 2 ApexCJ(SC) 457 ; 2004 2 CCR(SC) 178 ; 2004 3 CriCC 598 ; 2004 2 Crimes(SC) 386 ; 2004 CrLJ 3832 ; 2004 2 GLH 638 ; 2004 4 JT 80 ; 2004 2 MPWN 145 ; 2004 3 Scale 704 ; 2004 10 SCC 583 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 2032 ; 2004 2 WLC 180 ; 2004 2 Supreme 739
2004(2) Supreme 739
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel -Appellant
versus
Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 1997
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1081 of 1997
Decided on 26-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Jaspal Singh, Jitendra Sharma, Yashank Adhyaru, Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Minakshi Vij, P.N. Jha, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Sanjay Jain, Adolf Mathew, Vinay Arora, R.P. Wadhwani, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, Supreme Court would be slow in reversing finding entered by High Court unless there was perverse and erroneous appreciation of evidence.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.300, S.149, S.302
(A) The accused were charged under Indian Penal Code Sections 300 (murder), 149 (unlawful assembly), and 302 (punishment for murder), read with Sections 149 and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, for offenses involving an unlawful assembly and the death of the deceased. These sections define the elements of culpable homicide amounting to murder, liability for actions of an unlawful assembly, and procedural aspects relating to evidence assessment in criminal trials.
(B) Key principles include the high threshold required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, the necessity of reliable and timely witness testimony, the significance of unexplained delays and evidentiary gaps undermining prosecution credibility, and the standard of review on appeal against acquittal which demands strict adherence to perverse or erroneous appreciation of evidence.
Facts of the case:
On 13th November, 1985, the accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, forcibly took the deceased from his house, caused a series of injuries, and left him near a Babul tree, where he was declared dead. The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses, but their evidence was challenged on reliability grounds.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found infirmities in the prosecution case, including unexplained delays in recording witness statements and inconsistencies in testimony, leading to a conclusion that the accused were not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the prosecution established a legally and factually sufficient case to convict the accused of murder under Section 300 read with Section 149, and whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused despite strong suspicion.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellate court held that, as an appeal against acquittal, it would not reverse the High Courts order unless there was a perverse or erroneous appreciation of evidence, and the existing infirmities and speculative nature of the prosecution evidence did not justify overturning the acquittal.
Result:
The appeals were dismissed, and the accused were acquitted.
(A) The accused were charged under Indian Penal Code Sections 300 (murder), 149 (unlawful assembly), and 302 (punishment for murder), read with Sections 149 and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, for offenses involving an unlawful assembly and the death of the deceased. These sections define the elements of culpable homicide amounting to murder, liability for actions of an unlawful assembly, and procedural aspects relating to evidence assessment in criminal trials.
(B) Key principles include the high threshold required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, the necessity of reliable and timely witness testimony, the significance of unexplained delays and evidentiary gaps undermining prosecution credibility, and the standard of review on appeal against acquittal which demands strict adherence to perverse or erroneous appreciation of evidence.
Facts of the case:
On 13th November, 1985, the accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, forcibly took the deceased from his house, caused a series of injuries, and left him near a Babul tree, where he was declared dead. The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses, but their evidence was challenged on reliability grounds.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found infirmities in the prosecution case, including unexplained delays in recording witness statements and inconsistencies in testimony, leading to a conclusion that the accused were not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
Whether the prosecution established a legally and factually sufficient case to convict the accused of murder under Section 300 read with Section 149, and whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused despite strong suspicion.
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellate court held that, as an appeal against acquittal, it would not reverse the High Courts order unless there was a perverse or erroneous appreciation of evidence, and the existing infirmities and speculative nature of the prosecution evidence did not justify overturning the acquittal.
Result:
The appeals were dismissed, and the accused were acquitted.
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-These two appeals arise from the same Judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 144, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. Among the five respondents, the 5th respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeals. All the respondents were found guilty by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat for all the offences charged against them and for the main offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, they had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. In the appeal filed by these respondents, the High Court was of the view that the prosecution failed to bring home their guilt. Accused No.5 was the paternal uncle of deceased Natwarlal Bhanubhai. Accused No.2 is the son-in-law of accused No.5. Accused No.1 is a brother of Accused No.2. Accused No.3 and accused No.4 are cousins of accused No. 2. The prosecution case was that on 13th November, 1985, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to the house of the deceased and forcibly took him to a nearby Babul tree and caused him a series of injuries and he died on the spot. PW 7 is the widow of deceased and PW 4 is the son of the deceased. At the time of the incident, some children were playing in the neighbourhood. On seeing the assault, they made a noise and after hearing the noise, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 11, the brother of the deceased came to the place of occurrence. PW 11 took the injured Natwarlal Bhanubhai to the Civil Hospital at Surat where the Doctor examined him and declared him to be dead.
3. From the side of the prosecution, PW 7 and PW 4 were examined as eyewitnesses. PW 11, who gave the FI statement deposed that he had seen the accused persons at the place of the incident. The High Court held that there were certain infirmities in the prosecution case, and hence the accused persons were not guilty of the offences charged against them.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that PW 7 and PW 4 who claimed to be eyewitnesses cannot be believed for various reasons. It was submitted that the incident happened on 13.11.1985 but these two witnesses were questioned by the Investigation Officer only on 15.11.1985. No proper explanation was given by the Investigation Officer. There is evidence to show that the Investigation Officer had visited the house of the deceased on the very next day. It seems that there was an attempt by the prosecution to show that PW 7 the widow of the deceased was unconscious during this period and therefore, she could not be questioned by the Police. But they could have questioned PW 4, the son of the deceased at least on the very next day. The delay in questioning these witnesses by the Investigation Officer is a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution. We do not think that the High Court erred in disbelieving these witnesses.
5. PW 11, the brother of the deceased gave the FI Statement wherein he stated that he was the eyewitness. He gave a detailed account regarding the alleged manner in which the incident happened but when he was examined as a witness, he stated that he came to the scene of occurrence only after the incident and the accused were found standing near the deceased with various weapons. Therefore, the evidence of PW 11 also is tainted with certain embellishments. The learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out various infirmities in the prosecution case. According to PW 7 and PW 4, the accused came to their house, pulled the deceased out of the house and took him to a nearby babul tree. Why the accused who were armed with weapons did not assault the deceased at the house itself still remained a mystery? This caused some suspicion as the defence version was that the deceased was having an affair with another woman and in that connection, there was a quarrel and he must have been done away with by some other assailants and they brought the dead body near the Babul tree and left it there.
6. This being an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be slow in reversing the finding entered by the High Court unless there is perverse and erroneous appreciation of evidence. If the High Court, for acquitting the accused has given certain tenable reasons, this Court would not be justified in interfering with such acquittal. We do not think that the High Court has taken a view which was not plausible in view of the overall evidence given by the prosecution. Though, the prosecution could establish a serious and strong suspicion against the respondents, we do not think that this case calls for reversal of the Judgment of the High Court.
7. The appeals filed by the de-facto complainant and by the State are dismissed accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.
**************
00028
00029
00030