'Double Presumption Available In Favour Of Accused After Acquittal' : Supreme Court Restores Acquittal In Murder Case

Affirming the Trial Court's view of doubting the recovery made u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the bench of Justices AS Oka and MM Sundresh said,

"Much reliance has been made on the recoveries made. When the observation Mahazar was prepared along with the sketch and the inquest conducted, admittedly, scores of persons were present. No independent witness was made to sign and the evidence on behalf of the prosecution that they did not volunteer to do so, cannot be accepted. A witness may not come forward to adduce evidence at times when asked to act as an eyewitness. However, when a large number of persons were available near the dead body, it is incomprehensible as to how all of them refused to sign the documents prepared by the police."

The court further added that, "We do not find any perversity in it and the law presumes double presumption in favour of the accused after a due adjudication by the trial Court. We do believe that the High Court could have been slower in reversing the order of acquittal rendered by the Court of First Instance."

In the present matter, an FIR was registered on May 30, 2011 on finding a dead body. The deceased's brother identified the body and the police recorded statements of the brother and his father wherein no suspects were indicated. A map was also prepared by the IO upon conducting an inquest. The police on suspicions raised by the deceased's father and brother with regards to the deceased's friend being an accused secured him. Since the firearm was recovered, the police officer prepared observation Mahazar along with the sketch and the recovery Mahazar. The same was signed under Section 27 of the Act by the police officers with the exception that the latter one was signed by deceased's father as well.

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 Trial Court deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Despite concurring with the views expressed by the trial Court qua the last seen theory, the Delhi High Court convicted the accused against which an appeal was filed.

It was urged by accused's counsel that well-merited judgment of the trial Court ought not to have been reversed by the High Court by replacing its own views. Counsel further averred that having accepted the views of the trial Court as a plausible one, the conviction ought not to have been rendered. Asserting importance on motive assuming crucial role in a case of circumstantial evidence, counsel further said that motive was not established in manner known to law. It was also his contention that 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 accused were rightly doubted by the trial court and suspicion created by the trial Court had not been dispelled.

For GNCTD, ASG Aishwarya Bhati submitted that High Court's power in deciding the appeal is wide. She also contended that deceased's father had deposed about the motive due to enmity between the deceased and the accused.

To adjudicate on the issue, the bench referred to section 378 of CrPC which deals with "Appeal in case of acquittal" and court's ratio in Jafarudheen & Ors. v State of Kerala| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403 where it was observed that appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing order of trial court rendering acquittal.

Relying on the ratio laid down in Mohan alias Srinivas alias Seena alias Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233] and N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., [(2021) 3 SCC 687], court said, "Applying the said principles and after going through the judgment rendered by the trial Court as well as the High Court, we do feel that it is a case where the High Court has not acted within the legal parameters."

Considering the paragraphs of the impugned judgment wherein the High Court had concurred with Trial Court's view with regards to last seen theory, the court said,

"Thus, when the last seen theory is found to be not true, there has to be much more concrete and clinching evidence to implicate the appellant. PW1 is the father of the deceased who not only deposed that there was no animosity between the deceased and the appellant, but also that he did not know about the past transaction. Having accepted the views of the trial Court holding that the last seen theory has not been proved, a conviction cannot be rendered on the basis of evidence, which was rejected qua motive, through the mouth of PW2," Court said.

On the aspect of motive assuming significance in a case of circumstantial evidence, the bench while referring to Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1994) Supp 3 SCC 367 said, "When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence."

Case Title: Ravi Sharma v GNCTD| Criminal Appeal 410/2015

Coram: Justices AS Oka and MM Sundresh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters - Para 8- Quotes Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 495)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence.(Para 13)