2024 Supreme(SC) 829

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Vijay Singh@Vijay Kr. Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2015 With Criminal Appeal No. 1578 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2017
Decided On : 25-09-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Without proof of foundational facts, case of prosecution cannot succeed on presence of motive alone.
(2) Appreciation of evidence – When version put forth by interested witnesses comes under shadow of doubt, rule of prudence demands that independent public witnesses must be examined and corroborating material must be gathered.
(3) Post mortem report is generally not considered as conclusive evidence of facts mentioned in the report regarding cause of death, time of death etc.
(4) Reversal of acquittal – Rather, view taken by Trial Court must be held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 140 and 103(1) read with Section 3(5)] – Kidnapping and murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Offence of murder was committed after commission of offence of abduction – There is sequential relationship between the two offences – In order to set up a case for commission of offence of murder, it is necessary to prove commission of offence of abduction by accused persons/appellants – Prosecution ought to have examined three natural witnesses of incident – Since three eye witnesses were similarly placed as per their own version, rejection of testimony of one witness ought to have raised natural doubt on testimonies of other two witnesses unless they had a better explanation – However, no such doubt was entertained by High Court and impugned judgment offers no explanation for the same – Testimonies of eye witnesses are also impeachable in light of other evidence on record – Conduct of eye witnesses also appears to be unnatural considering that they were all relatives of deceased – Mere presence of certain make-up articles cannot be a conclusive proof of fact that deceased was residing in the house, especially when another woman was admittedly residing there – Make-up articles were linked with deceased on the basis of a completely unacceptable reasoning and without any corroborative material – Observation of High Court is not only legally untenable but also highly objectionable – Sweeping observation of this nature is not commensurate with sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law, specifically when same is not made out from any evidence on record – Link of causation between accused persons and alleged offence is conspicuously missing – Without proof of foundational facts, case of prosecution cannot succeed on presence of motive alone – Appellants acquitted of all charges levelled upon them. (Paras 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35 and 37)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Ordinarily, there is no rule of law to discard testimonies of witnesses merely be-cause they were known to victim or belonged to her family – An offence may be committed in circumstances that only family members are present at place of occurrence in natural course – When version put forth by interested witnesses comes under shadow of doubt, rule of prudence demands that independent public witnesses must be examined and corroborating material must be gathered – More so, when public witnesses were readily available and offence has not taken place in bounds of closed walls. (Para 24)

(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Post mortem report is generally not considered as conclusive evidence of facts mentioned in the report regarding cause of death, time of death etc. – It could always be corroborated with other direct evidence on record such as ocular evidence of eye witnesses – However, when there is no other credible evidence on record to contradict report, facts stated in post mortem report are generally taken as true. (Para 30)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 419] – Reversal of acquittal – In order to reverse finding of acquittal, higher threshold is required – Presumption of innocence operating in favour of accused throughout trial gets concretized with finding of acquittal by Trial Court – Such a finding could not be reversed merely because possibility of an alternate view was alive – Rather, view taken by Trial Court must be held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:

Principal issue that arises before Court is whether the finding of guilt of appellants arrived at by High Court is sustainable in light of the evidence on record. It also needs to be examined whether approach of High Court was in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal into conviction in a criminal appeal. Case is to be examined only with respect to the offences under Sections 364 and 302 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment as well as judgment rendered by Trial Court (to the extent of conviction of A-1 to A-5) are set aside, and all seven accused persons (appellants) are hereby acquitted of all charges levelled upon them. Appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if lying in custody.

Result : Appeals disposed of.