2003 (1) TMI 741 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of the prosecution's evidence and witness credibility.
3. Examination of the alleged motive and circumstances of the crime.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The appellants were initially acquitted by the trial court of charges u/s 148/302/307/324/394 of the Penal Code. However, the High Court reversed this acquittal, convicting them u/s 302 read with Section 34, u/s 307 read with Section 34, and u/s 324 read with Section 34, sentencing them to life imprisonment, five years, and one year respectively. Appellant No. 1 was also convicted u/s 394 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court found that the trial court's acquittal was reasonable and not perverse, thus the High Court erred in reversing it.

2. Evaluation of the Prosecution's Evidence and Witness Credibility:
The prosecution's case involved eyewitness accounts from Vinay Kumar (PW 1) and Rattan (PW 2), while Sita Ram (PW 3) and Rajdeo (PW 4) were declared hostile. The trial court doubted the prosecution's case due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and medical evidence. For instance, injuries on the back of the deceased contradicted the claim that shots were fired from the front. Additionally, the absence of bullet marks on the Jeep and the suspicious behavior of taking injured persons to the police station before the hospital further weakened the prosecution's case.

3. Examination of the Alleged Motive and Circumstances of the Crime:
The alleged motive was twofold: a pending case u/s 392 against the deceased and others, and a dispute over a Sopai Ghat settlement. However, the trial court found these motives insufficient and suggested they could be grounds for false implication. The deceased's history as a criminal and the possibility of his death occurring under different circumstances were also considered.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's acquittal was justified and reasonable. The High Court's interference was unwarranted as the trial court's decision did not suffer from perversity. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal was restored. The appellants were discharged from their bail bonds.