IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder and conspiracy – Statements made by IOs regarding motive, conspiracy and preparation comes out as prosecution story, as discernible from Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of Cr.P.C.
(2) Disclosure statement – Information or disclosure should necessarily be free from any element of compulsion and only so much of information as relating distinctly to the fact thereby discovered can be proved and nothing more.

JUDGMENT :

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Prevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery. Witnesses mount the box to disown prior statements, deny recoveries made, feign ignorance of aggravating circumstances spoken of during investigation and eye witnesses turn blind. Here is a classic case of 71 of the total 87 witnesses including eye-witnesses, turning hostile, leaving the prosecution to stand on the testimony of the police and official witnesses. Even a young boy, the crucial eyewitness, who saw his father being hacked to death, failed to identify the assailants.

2. The prosecution alleged that due to differences arising from sharing of assets of the father; an entrepreneur who set up several educational institutions, A1 and his brother, PW4, were at loggerheads. The deceased an employee of one of the institutions, later allotted to the share of A1, resigned to join an institution managed by PW4, after the division of assets. The enmity of A1 arises, according to the prosecution, due to the active involvement of the deceased in the sibling rivalry, aligning himself with PW4, to the hilt. A1 along with his employees A2 to A4 engaged A5 and A6, through A7, an Advocate, to murder the deceased. A5 and A6 is said to have carried out the brutal murder, hacking the deceased to death, in front of his son, PW8, at 07:45 pm on 28.04.2011. PW8, immediately contacted his relatives and the deceased was rushed to the hospital where he breathed his last at 08:40 pm on the same day.

3. The first information statement (FIS) was lodged by PW8, leading to the registration of the crime and the resultant investigation. As was said, 87 witnesses were led in trial to speak about the homicide, the motive, the meeting of minds leading to the conspiracy, the preparation, what transpired after the incident and the arrest, recovery, chemical analysis and so on and so forth; all in vain for most turned hostile, especially the ones who were relevant. The Trial Court acquitted the accused finding no support for the prosecution case from the large number of witnesses arrayed to prove the various aspects leading to the murder, all of whom, except the official witnesses, turned hostile. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted A1 to A6 under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The acquittal of A7 by the Trial Court was affirmed by the High Court.

4. A1 has filed one of the appeals in which Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for the accused/appellant. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Counsel appeared in the other appeals filed by A2 to A6. Mr. Aman Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the State. Heard both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate General and perused the records.

5. The Division Bench at the outset, dealt with the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein this Court had set out the general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal from an acquittal. The principles are trite; extract having been made in the impugned judgment, we would not repeat. We are tasked to find out whether the principles have been followed scrupulously by the Division Bench in setting aside the order of acquittal. Whether, while exercising the full power conferred in an appeal to review, reappreciate and consider the evidence led in the case, the Division Bench has been circumspect, keeping in mind the trite fundamental principle that the presumption of innocence available to the accused, under the general law, stands fortified and strengthened by reason of the order of acquittal. Whether, the Trial Court has been absolutely unreasonable in taking a view that there was insufficient evidence to bring home a conviction in the case and whe