1990 (2) TMI 326 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

(a) Whether the appellants were guilty of forming an unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy to cause the death of the deceased, thereby attracting liability under Sections 120B, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.);

(b) Whether the evidence, particularly the testimony of the sole eyewitness (P.W. 1), was credible and sufficient to sustain convictions under the charged sections;

(c) Whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the conduct of the eyewitness cast doubt on the prosecution's case;

(d) Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the appellants were legally sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Guilt of the appellants under Sections 120B, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, and 201 I.P.C.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and conspired to murder the deceased, executed the murder, attempted to murder another witness (P.W. 1), and caused disappearance of evidence by disposing of the dead body in a river. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 302 read with 149 (murder by an unlawful assembly), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. However, the appellants were acquitted under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with 149.

The legal framework governing these offences requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the formation of unlawful assembly, common object to commit the offence, participation in the act, and the actual commission of the crime. Section 149 imputes liability to every member of the unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of the common object.

The Court noted the factual matrix: the appellants were inter-related and hostile towards the deceased due to inheritance disputes. The attack was alleged to have been carried out with deadly weapons (axes and daggers), resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to P.W. 1.

Issue (b): Credibility and sufficiency of the sole eyewitness (P.W. 1)

The pivotal evidence was the testimony of P.W. 1, the son-in-law of the deceased and sole eyewitness to the attack. The appellants challenged the reliability of P.W. 1's evidence on the ground of interest, artificiality, and suspicious conduct. The Court scrutinized P.W. 1's testimony and noted that after the attack, he did not immediately inform the villagers but went to his own village and only informed his mother-in-law. The FIR was lodged with a delay of approximately 15 hours.

Legal precedents establish that a conviction can rest on the testimony of a sole witness if it is wholly trustworthy. However, the Court emphasized that the evidence must be free from suspicion and consistent with natural conduct expected from a witness. The delayed reporting and selective informing raised doubts about the veracity of P.W. 1's testimony.

Issue (c): Effect of delay in lodging FIR and conduct of eyewitness on the prosecution case

The Court recognized that delay in lodging FIR can be fatal if it causes suspicion about the authenticity of the prosecution story. The 15-hour delay, coupled with P.W. 1's failure to inform other villagers or authorities promptly, undermined the prosecution's case. The Court also considered that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out, given the hostile relations between the parties.

Issue (d): Sustainability of concurrent findings of guilt by the Trial Court and High Court

The Court examined the judgments of the lower courts and found that both had placed significant reliance on the testimony of P.W. 1 without adequately addressing the suspicious circumstances surrounding his evidence. The Court found the conclusions of guilt to be unsustainable in light of the doubts cast on the prosecution's primary evidence.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"No doubt, plurality of witnesses is not necessary to establish a fact in issue and a conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole witness provided that evidence is wholly believable."

However, the Court further stated:

"In the present case as we have come to the conclusion that the evidence of the P.W. 1 is clouded with strong suspicion and as the first information report was lodged by a delay of 15 hours, the false implication of appellants in the present case cannot be completely ruled out."

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences recorded under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, and 201 I.P.C., and acquitted all the appellants.

The core principles established include:

- The indispensability of credible, trustworthy evidence even when based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness;

- The critical importance of timely reporting of offences to corroborate the prosecution case;

- The necessity for courts to carefully scrutinize the conduct of witnesses and the circumstances of the case to exclude the possibility of false implication;

- The appellate Court's power to overturn concurrent findings of guilt when the evidence is found to be doubtful or insufficient.

On the facts, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in their acquittal.