HC: When substantial evidence is lacking to connect accused with crime, other corroborative evidence loses significance

  

The Gujarat High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices SH Vora and Rajendra Sareen upheld an order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in a criminal case under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. (STATE OF GUJARAT Versus KISHORBHAI DEVJIBHAI PARMAR & 4 other(s))

The bench observed that in the matter, substantial evidence in linking the accused with crime was lacking and so the corroborative evidence loses its importance.

Facts of the case

The sister of the deceased was eve-teased by the five accused and she died leading to a clash of words between the deceased and the accused persons. The incident had taken place 5 years prior to the death of the deceased and it was alleged that the deceased death happened out of a grudge. FIR was lodged and the charge sheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate which lacked jurisdiction, thereby, the court committed the case to the Sessions Court.

The Trial Court had acquitted the respondents-accused of all the charges. An appeal was filed before the High Court.

Courts Observation and Judgment 

The Court observed, “when substantial evidence is lacking to connect the respondents accused with the crime or not brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the guilt, other corroborative evidence loses its significance or needs any consideration to upset the findings and therefore, there is no need to overburden the judgment anymore or needs any discussion of such evidence.”

The Bench also observed that a large number of Prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. A child witness had earlier given the names of the assailants and informed the assailants of the Complainant. However, during the deposition, she deposed that she had not given any names and had not seen the offence. The child also admitted that when the first pipe blow was inflicted on the head of his father, the deceased, he ran away crying.

The bench dismissing the plea remarked, "We have independently re-examined and re-assessed evidence and also findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and we also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Judge leading to the acquittal, more so, the child is not an eye witness to the occurrence of entire incident.

Except relying upon aforesaid evidence, no any other direct evidence either oral or documentary is pressed into service to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court leading to acquittal of the respondents accused. When substantial evidence is lacking to connect the respondents accused with the crime or not brought on record sufficient evidence to establish the guilt, other corroborative evidence loses its significance or needs any consideration to upset the findings and therefore, there is no need to overburden the judgment anymore or needs any discussion of such evidence.”

The bench further observed, "As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. 

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal."

Read Judgment ;

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure