2019 Supreme(SC) 37

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Ashish Jain – Appellant
Versus
Makrand Singh and Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1980 OF 2008
With
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Makrand Singh and Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2008
Decided On : 14-01-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Interference with order of acquittal by High court should be made only for compelling and substantial reasons like the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court being palpably erroneous, constituting a substantial miscarriage of justice or there being misconception of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence or the High Court completely misdirecting itself in reversing the order of conviction by the Trial Court.
Discrepancies and contradictions in evidence make prosecution story doubtful.
Evidentiary value of confession extracted from accused under undue pressure and compulsion from the investigating officer leading to the recovery is nullified.
Absence of a magisterial order does not make taking finger prints of accused illegal.
Flawed investigation weakens prosecution case.

Headnote:(a) Criminal jurisprudence – Appeal against acquittal – presumption of innocence in favour of the accused becomes fortified by order of acquittal – If the view of the High Court is reasonable and based on the material on record, Supreme Court should not interfere – Interference should be made only for compelling and substantial reasons like the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court being palpably erroneous, constituting a substantial miscarriage of justice or there being misconception of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence or the High Court completely misdirecting itself in reversing the order of conviction by the Trial Court. (Para 17)

       (2011) 6 SCC 343; (2008) 16 SCC 238; (1985) 4 SCC 476 – Relied upon

       (b) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – PW 12 and 20, last seen witnesses, informing the informant who lodged FIR – Last seen circumstance not mentioned in FIR – Statement of last seen witnesses recorded a day after lodging FIR – Held, statements of PW12 and PW20 were an afterthought. (Para 18)

       (c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Chance witness – PW 20 informing the informant of the incident rightly held by High Court to be a chance witness – Discrepancies and contradictions in his statement – Evidence as to the last seen circumstance discarded. (Para 19)

       Criminal trial – Delay in arrest of accused despite knowledge of their whereabouts who did not abscond – Makes prosecution story doubtful. (Para 20)

       (d) Criminal trial – Confession extracted from accused under undue pressure and compulsion from the investigating officer – Evidentiary value of such a statement leading to the recovery is nullified – Involuntary confession – Hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India – Such confession rendered inadmissible – Section 27, Indian Evidence act, 1872. (Para 21, 22)

       (2010) 7 SCC 263 – Relied upon

       (e) Criminal trial – Recovery – Identification of items recovered from accused – Instantly, without mixing the items – Held, identification not done in accordance with due procedure – Non-examination of two important witnesses to recoveries adversely affecting prosecution case. (Para 23, 24)

       (f) Criminal trial – Weapons seized from accused not matching with description of injuries – FSL reports not conclusive – Held, recovery of weapons or blood stained clothes not reliable. (Para 25, 26)

       (g) Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 – Section 4 and 5 – Taking finger prints of accused – Section 4 authorising police officer to take finger prints of accused – Section 5 requiring order of a Magistrate for doing so – Section 5 not mandatory but directory – Absence of a magisterial order does not make the act illegal – However, packaging and sealing of tumblers in question made in presence of relatives of the deceased only – Possibility of tampering and postfacto addition of fingerprints cannot be ruled out – High Court rightly disregarded this evidence. (Para 27)

       (2018) 8 SCC 24; (1978) 3 SCC 435; (1997) 10 SCC 44 – Relied upon

       (h) Criminal trial – Investigation – DIG visiting the place of occurrence – Seeing three tumblers opining presence of three accused – Setting trend of investigation – Resulting in flawed investigation – Weakening case of prosecution. (Para 28)

       Facts of the case:

       The accused respondents Makrand Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh and Shyam Sunder were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 394 read with 34 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 11 read with 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti and Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam and additionally respondent Makrand Singh for offences under Section 25(1)(b)(a) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPKA for causing the death of three people, viz. Premchand Jain, his wife Anandi Devi and unmarried daughter Preeti, and for committing robbery of Rs. 30,000/in cash and about Rs. 8,00,000/worth of gold and silver.

       The High court acquitted all the accused.

       Finding of the Court;

       There is no glaring infirmity in the acquittal granted by the High Court.

       Result: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1980-1981 of 2008 dismissed