Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a batch of criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of the Patna High Court dated 26.03.2015. The case pertains to the abduction and murder of Neelam on 30.08.1985. Seven accused persons were charged under Sections 323, 302, 364, 449, 450, 380/34 and 120-B IPC. The Trial Court convicted five accused (A-1 to A-5) under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC and acquitted two accused (A-6 Vijay Singh and A-7 Tanik Singh) of all charges. The High Court, in appeals by the convicts and the State, upheld the conviction of A-1 to A-5 and reversed the acquittal of A-6 and A-7, convicting them under the same sections. The appellants before the Supreme Court were A-6 and A-7 (challenging their conviction) and A-1 to A-5 (challenging their conviction). The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of A-6 and A-7, setting aside their conviction, and dismissed the appeals of A-1 to A-5, upholding their conviction. The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 without finding any perversity in the trial court's view. The trial court had noted that A-6 and A-7 had no motive, were not named in the FIR, and their participation was not clearly established. The High Court's reliance on the testimonies of PW2, PW4, and PW18 was insufficient to overturn the acquittal, especially since the trial court's view was a possible view. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court can reverse only if the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. Since the trial court's view was plausible, the High Court's interference was unwarranted. However, the Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction of A-1 to A-5, as the evidence against them was consistent and the High Court's appreciation was sound.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Principles governing reversal of acquittal - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can reverse the acquittal only if the view taken by the trial court is perverse or unreasonable; if the trial court's view is a possible view, the High Court cannot substitute its own view - Held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 without finding any perversity in the trial court's reasoning (Paras 12-14, 18-20). B) Criminal Law - Motive - Relevance in absence of direct evidence - Motive assumes significance when the case rests on circumstantial evidence - In the present case, A-6 and A-7 had no motive as they had no interest in the property dispute - Held that absence of motive for A-6 and A-7 was a relevant factor supporting their acquittal (Paras 7, 12, 18). C) Criminal Law - Section 34 IPC - Common Intention - Mere presence or participation in a minor act does not attract Section 34 unless there is a pre-arranged plan or common intention to commit the principal offence - The High Court's finding that A-6 and A-7 shared common intention with other accused was not supported by evidence - Held that the conviction of A-6 and A-7 under Section 34 was unsustainable (Paras 11, 18-20). D) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - The High Court excluded the testimony of PW5 as doubtful but relied on PW2, PW4, and PW18 - However, the trial court had found inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW2 and PW4 regarding the role of A-6 and A-7 - Held that the High Court's re-appreciation did not justify reversal of acquittal (Paras 9-11, 18-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 and convicting them under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC, and whether the conviction of A-1 to A-5 is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of A-6 and A-7 (Criminal Appeal No. 1031/2015 and connected appeals of A-6 and A-7), setting aside their conviction and acquitting them of all charges. The appeals of A-1 to A-5 were dismissed, upholding their conviction under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- principles governing reversal of acquittal
- possible view test
- motive in criminal law
- Section 34 IPC common intention
- appreciation of evidence
- Section 313 CrPC examination
