2003 (1) TMI 760 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing by the High Court.
2. Acquittal by the trial court.
3. Evidence of the child witness.
4. Judicial confession of co-accused.
5. Corroborative evidence and recovery of articles.
6. Motive for the crime.
7. Applicability of M.P. (Dacoity Vihavaran Kshetra) Act, 1981.
8. Fabrication of evidence by the prosecution.

Summary:

1. Conviction and Sentencing by the High Court:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellants for offences u/s 302/34, 396, 460, 404 of IPC and Section 11/13 of M.P. (Dacoity Vihavaran Kshetra) Adhiniyam 1981, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, with an additional one-year rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

2. Acquittal by the Trial Court:
The trial court had acquitted the appellants and co-accused Pooran Singh on 06.09.1985, rejecting the prosecution's evidence, including the child witness's testimony and the alleged recovery of articles.

3. Evidence of the Child Witness:
The High Court relied mainly on the testimony of the child witness Arvind Kumar (PW-19), who was six years old at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court noted serious infirmities in his evidence, including the lack of a test identification parade and the failure to produce the child's maternal uncle Agyaram as a witness. The child's testimony was deemed unreliable due to the possibility of tutoring and inconsistencies in his statements.

4. Judicial Confession of Co-Accused:
The High Court considered the judicial confession of co-accused Pooran Singh as corroborative evidence. However, the Supreme Court found the confession unreliable due to procedural lapses, including the failure to ensure it was made voluntarily and the retraction of the confession by Pooran Singh, who claimed it was obtained under duress.

5. Corroborative Evidence and Recovery of Articles:
The High Court mentioned the recovery of domestic articles as corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court found this evidence weak and insufficient to sustain the conviction, noting that the recovered items were of little value and unlikely to be carried by the accused after committing the crime.

6. Motive for the Crime:
The alleged motive was a civil dispute between the deceased Mata Prasad and accused Bhagwan Singh. The Supreme Court found this motive insufficient to justify such a heinous crime, considering it at best a cause for suspicion rather than conclusive evidence.

7. Applicability of M.P. (Dacoity Vihavaran Kshetra) Act, 1981:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the area was dacoity-affected, suggesting the possibility of the crime being committed by unknown criminals, which was not wholly ruled out.

8. Fabrication of Evidence by the Prosecution:
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution had overdone its job by fabricating evidence, including false testimonies about overhearing the plan of murder and the recovery of articles, which were rightly not believed by both courts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was unjustified in reversing the trial court's acquittal. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was proper and reasonable. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal was maintained. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.