Brief Facts
- The Appellants, were accused of murdering Babureddy, a real estate businessman, in Bangalore Rural District.
- The Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons due to the inconsistencies in testimonies of eye witnesses, unusual conduct of the eye witnesses in not intervening while the deceased was being assaulted by accused persons and not even informing the police about the incident despite having mobile phones, unexplained delay of Investigation Agency in recording the statement of the material testimonies, inter alia.
- However, the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal and found the appellants guilty for offences under section 143,147, 148, 120-B and 302 IPC, against which the appeal was preferred before the Apex Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the Appellants?
- Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the eye witnesses will make them unreliable so as to record the finding of guilt of Appellants?
- Whether the delay caused by Investigation Officer in recorded the statement of the material witnesses would affect the credibility of such witness?
Held
- The order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court and Appellants were acquitted. It was observed that the Trial Court recorded a detailed finding while acquitting the accused persons, however, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal without recording reasons to support its conclusion.
- The statements of PW-2 and PW-3, the so-called eyewitnesses, were recorded under Section 161 CrPC one month after the date of the incident. This delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording their statements weighed heavily against the prosecution. Reliance was placed by the Trial Court on the judgment of this court in Gayadin vs. State of M.P., 2005) 12 SCC 267 to infer the possibility of these witnesses being planted witnesses.
- The High Court merely summed up the depositions of the so-called eyewitnesses and baldly concluded that the presence of the eyewitnesses, PWs 1 to 3, could not be doubted. Surprisingly, despite the Trial Court detailing, at great length, the contradictions and discrepancies in their depositions, the High Court observed that the Trial Court had not pointed out any major contradictions which would discredit the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the evidence of other witnesses. According to the High Court, the evidence adduced by the prosecution outweighed the findings recorded by the Trial Court, but no reasons worth the name were recorded by the High Court to support this conclusion. On the strength of these cryptic observations, the High Court deemed it fit to reverse the judgment of acquittal; hold the accused guilty of the offences as charged and sentence them to imprisonment for life.
- The Apex Court relied on the case of Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 4 SCC 415 and Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1977 2 SCC 205 to explain the scope of the interference of the Appellate Court in the order of acquittal of the accused persons.
Relevant Para Nos.
- 12, 14, 17, 18, 20