Case Title: Ravi Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and anr
After finding fault in High Court’s order, the Supreme Court restored acquittal of an accused in a murder case. In the aforementioned case, all witnesses who acknowledged the deceased's body and signed the mahazar were police officials.
Keeping in mind the Trial Court's order, the bench stated that, "much reliance has been placed 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 continued, "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 more deliberate in reversing the order of acquittal rendered by the Court of First Instance."
On May 30, 2011, a dead body was discovered, prompting the filing of an FIR in the current case. The body was identified by deceased's brother, and the police took down testimonies from his brother and father in which no suspects were mentioned. The IO also created a map after conducting an inquiry. On the basis of concerns expressed by the deceased's father and brother that deceased's friend might be an accused, the police later arrested him. The police officer observed Mahazar along with a sketch which was recovered by them. The police officers signed both documents in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, although the latter document also included father of the dead person.
The Trial Court determined that it was fair to give the accused benefit of doubt after concluding that the motive had not been proven and that the recovery was dubious despite the presence of numerous independent witnesses on both occasions. The Delhi High Court found the accused guilty while agreeing with the trial court's opinions regarding the last seen theory, against which an appeal was filed.
The counsel for the accused argued that the High Court shouldn't have overruled the Trial Court's well-deserved decision by substituting its own ideas. Counsel further claimed that the conviction should not have been given because it was reasonable to accept the Trial Court's viewpoints. Counsel emphasised the significance of motive in a case involving circumstantial evidence and said that motive had not been demonstrated in a legal manner. The Trial Court correctly questioned how recoveries were made at the initial inspection at the scene of the incident and later at the request of the accused, and the Trial Court's initial suspicions were not allayed.
The bench used section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which addresses "Appeal in case of acquittal," and the court's ruling in Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala, where it was noted that the Appellate Court must proceed relatively slowly when overturning a Trial Court's judgement of acquittal.
"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 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."