Case Note & Summary
The Criminal Appeal was filed by the son of the deceased, who was the first informant, against the acquittal of three accused persons by the trial court. The deceased was found dead in her residence on 25.07.2015, with her jewels and wearing apparels missing. The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to rob her and in furtherance of the common intention committed her murder. The accused were charged under Sections 120B, 302 read with 397 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court, after examining 18 prosecution witnesses and marking 21 exhibits, acquitted all three accused, holding that the evidence was primarily circumstantial and the recovery of material objects was doubtful. The court noted that the suicide note of the first accused was not proved to be written by him, the recovery of cash could not be linked to the stolen property, and the non-examination of another son of the deceased created a gap in the chain of circumstances. On appeal, the High Court reappreciated the evidence and found that the confession note was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act as it was given to the police and no fact was discovered to take it outside the prohibition. The recovery of jewels from the third accused after 12 days, kept in her blouse, was held improbable and the recovery witness was disbelieved. The court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is not warranted unless the trial court’s view is perverse. Since the view taken by the trial court was plausible and did not suffer from perversity, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure — Appeal Against Acquittal — Scope of Interference — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 372 — The appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view or suffers from perversity. Held that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was plausible and there was no perversity, hence acquittal confirmed (Paras 9-10). B) Evidence — Confession to Police — Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — The so-called suicide note (Ex.B9) was in the nature of a confession made to the police and not admissible under Section 25 as no fact was discovered to bring it under Section 27. The prosecution also failed to prove its authorship. Held that the document could not be relied upon to implicate the accused (Para 9). C) Evidence — Circumstantial Evidence — Chain of Circumstances — The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused. Non-examination of a material witness (another son Suresh) created a gap in the chain. Held that the chain was not complete and the benefit of doubt rightly given to the accused (Paras 4, 9). D) Evidence — Recovery — Credibility of Witness — Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Recovery of jewels from accused 3 after 12 days from the blouse was improbable and the recovery witness (P.W.8) was a stock witness whose testimony was demolished in cross-examination. Held that recovery not proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 6, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 120B, 302 read with 397 and 34 IPC based on insufficiency of circumstantial evidence was perverse and warranted interference.
Final Decision
The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.552 of 2016 dated 13.12.2019. The High Court held that the trial court's view was possible and not perverse; the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt; the confession note was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; and the recovery evidence was not credible.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Acquittal should not be interfered unless perverse or impossible view
- burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence
- admissibility of confession to police under Section 25 of Evidence Act
- necessity to examine material witnesses
- proof of recovery must be credible and linked to crime
