1983 (9) TMI 320 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence.
2. Alleged ante-timing of the FIR.
3. Rejection of independent witness testimony.
4. Principles for setting aside an acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inconsistency between Ocular and Medical Evidence:
The High Court acquitted the respondents primarily on the grounds that there was a significant inconsistency between the ocular evidence presented by the prosecution and the medical evidence. The High Court noted that the deceased had sustained one stab wound, one incised wound, two lacerated wounds, and two abrasions. It reasoned that since the respondents were allegedly armed with sharp cutting weapons like spears, the lacerated wounds and abrasions could not have been caused by these weapons.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court had committed a serious error of law by misreading the evidence. The prosecution witnesses had explained that the respondents armed with spears had used the lathi (wooden) portion of the spears to strike the deceased, which was consistent with the medical evidence showing lacerated wounds on the head. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had made a "mountain of a molehill" by suggesting that the explanation of using spears as lathis was an afterthought, and dismissed this reasoning as speculative.

2. Alleged Ante-timing of the FIR:
The High Court also questioned the timing of the FIR, suggesting it was lodged in the early hours of the morning of 30th May 1969, rather than at 11.15 p.m. on 29th May 1969, as claimed by the prosecution. This led to the conclusion that there was sufficient time for the prosecution to fabricate a case against the respondents due to previous enmity.

The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, noting that the informant was in a state of shock and distress, which could explain the use of the word "yesterday" in the FIR. Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized that villagers might not have a precise understanding of time, and the FIR being lodged around midnight did not significantly impact the case. The Supreme Court also highlighted that the Investigating Officer had reached the crime scene by 2.30 a.m., further corroborating the timeline provided by the prosecution.

3. Rejection of Independent Witness Testimony:
The High Court had rejected the testimony of PW 2, an independent witness, on the grounds that his actions after the incident were "highly unnatural" and that he was not present at his fodder shop when the Investigating Officer arrived. The High Court also noted that PW 2 was a class-fellow of the deceased, suggesting potential bias.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasons for rejecting PW 2's testimony unsustainable in law. It stated that the witness's actions of going to his uncle's house out of fear were not improbable and did not discredit his testimony. The Supreme Court also noted that PW 2 was a class-fellow of one of the respondents, Surendra, which made him a common friend and not an interested witness. The Supreme Court reiterated that the evidence of interested witnesses should be examined with caution but should not be discarded if it does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity.

4. Principles for Setting Aside an Acquittal:
The respondents argued that the Supreme Court should not interfere with an acquittal unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, or if the view taken by the High Court is perverse. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court's judgment bordered on perversity and that this was not a case where two views were reasonably possible.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed serious errors in appreciating and marshalling the evidence, relying more on speculation than the evidence presented. It concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court's order of acquittal was wrong on a point of law, warranting interference.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and convicted the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The respondents, who were on bail, were ordered to surrender to their bail bonds and be taken into custody to serve out the sentence imposed.