IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Though, motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon circumstantial evidence.
(2) Report of Ballistic Expert is a scientific evidence in nature of an opinion – It is required to use this evidence along with other substantive piece of evidence available.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. An order of acquittal passed on a scrutiny of evidence before it by the District and Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in S.C. No.6/12 got overturned by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi based upon the existence of motive along with the recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’).

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. On 30.05.2011, the first information report was recorded on finding a dead body. PW2, brother of the deceased, identified the body. Statements of both PW1, father of the deceased and PW2 have been recorded, which did not indicate any specific suspect. The Investigating Officer conducted the inquest and prepared the map. On the next day, doubts were raised by PWs 1 and 2 pointing the finger of suspicion on the accused who happens to be a friend of the deceased. Upon securing the accused, recovery of the material in the form of firearm was made. Both the observation Mahazar along with the sketch and the recovery Mahazar under Section 27 of the Act were signed by the police officers with the exception that the latter one was signed by PW2 as well.

3. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 and 2; PW2 with reference to the motive, and PW1 on the ground that it did not support the case of the prosecution. It raised a serious suspicion over the recovery made under Section 27 of the Act. From the place of occurrence, recoveries were made by way of a wooden piece of the butt of a gun along with the cartridges. Of this, four cartridges were found in the pocket of the deceased.

4. Having found that the motive has not been proved and the recovery being doubtful despite the presence of scores of independent witnesses on both occasions, the Court in the first instance deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant.

5. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, despite concurring with the views expressed by the trial Court qua the last seen theory, nonetheless accepted the evidence of PW2 with respect to the motive coupled with the recoveries made. Though the trial Court eschewed the evidence of the Ballistic Expert, which remained inconclusive with respect to the bullet which caused the death, relatable to the gun belonging to the appellant, the High Court felt that it could be relied upon. Incidentally, it was held that the wooden piece of the butt did belong to the appellant. Therefore, the circumstances forming a chain were sufficient enough to point out guilt towards him and accordingly the High Court rendered a conviction.

6. Learned counsel, Mr. Krishan Kumar, appearing for the appellant submitted that the well-merited judgment of the trial Court ought not to have been reversed by the High Court by replacing its own views. Having accepted the views of the trial Court as a plausible one, the conviction ought not to have been rendered. There was no link in the circumstantial chain as held by the High Court. Motive has not been established in the manner known to law. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes more importance. The opinion of the Ballistic Expert was rightly taken note of by the trial Court and in fact used in favour of the appellant, being inconclusive. The manner in which recoveries were made at the first instance during the inspection of the place of occurrence and thereafter at the instance of the appellant were rightly doubted by the trial court. The suspicion created by the trial Court has not been dispelled. As there is no perversity in the decision of the trial Court, the reversal at the hands of the High Court is unwarranted.

7. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents submitted that the power of the High Court in deciding the appeal is rather wide. The High Court may reappreciate the evidence which in fact it did. There is no perversity in the cogent reasons rendered by the High Court. PW2 has de