SC Refuses to Interfere with Acquittal of Uncle, Cousin in 1996 Murder of Serving Army Captain

The Supreme Court recently upheld the acquittal of three men accused in the 1996 murder of a serving Indian Army Captain, reiterating that an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only when there are “substantial and compelling reasons.” Court emphasised that once an accused is acquitted, the presumption of innocence stands strengthened.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria observed that interference by an appellate court in a case of acquittal must be minimal and guided by strong and cogent reasons.

“Reversal of acquittal should not be a matter of course merely because another view is possible. Even when the appellate court re-appreciates the evidence while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused remains a weighty rebuttable factor,” the bench said.

Court dismissed an appeal filed by Raj Pal Singh challenging the Allahabad High Court’s October 10, 2012 judgment, which had set aside the conviction recorded on November 23, 2007 by the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. The trial court had convicted respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1.5 lakh each.

The appellant-complainant was the father of Praveen Kumar, who was serving as a Captain in the Indian Army. Praveen was allegedly murdered by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, including his uncle Dharam Pal and cousin Rajveer, following a family dispute over division of land.

In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Dharam Pal stated that on June 7, 1996, when a Panchayat was being held, the complainant and his supporters began assaulting the accused persons. He claimed that he left the Panchayat and went to his room on the first floor of the house, and later heard the sound of a gunshot.

Rajveer, in his statement, asserted that he was working as a Professor at Shimbhawli College and had been residing there for the past 12 years. He claimed that he was not present in the village at the time of the incident.

The third accused, Sudhir, stated that he was a distant relative of Rajveer and was also not present at the time of the incident. He added that he was a B.Sc. student at the same college where Rajveer was employed as a Professor. All three accused claimed that they had been falsely implicated.

While acquitting the accused, the High Court held that the prosecution story did not inspire confidence and appeared highly improbable. It noted that it was difficult to believe that a serving Army Captain could have been dragged by three persons for about 14 steps and then pulled towards a staircase that was only three to five feet wide.

The High Court also took note of the fact that one of the accused was 65 years old and suffering from cancer. It further observed that the prosecution had failed to explain the alleged possession of a country-made pistol by Sudhir.

The High Court also found discrepancies in the timeline, noting that although the complainant claimed to have submitted an application on June 8, 1996, it was actually presented to the police only on June 12, 1996. Additionally, the complaint did not mention the incident that allegedly took place on June 7, 1996.

Concurring with these findings, the Supreme Court observed that although the alleged weapon of offence, a licensed firearm belonging to Dharam Pal, was recovered, no effort appeared to have been made to subject it to ballistic examination to establish whether the fatal bullets or pellets had been fired from it.

“Upon a close consideration of the evidence appreciated by the High Court, the view taken by the High Court is a plausible one justifying its conclusion. It does not appear to be unreasonable or such as would warrant substitution by this court,” the bench said.

Court further reiterated that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and that the circumstances must point to “must or should” and not merely “may be.”

Relying on its earlier judgment in Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka (2007), the court reiterated that where two views are possible on the evidence on record, the view favouring the accused and resulting in acquittal should not be interfered with by an appellate court.

“When the High Court has reversed the trial court’s decision after appreciating the relevant evidence and has arrived at a plausible conclusion acquitting respondent Nos. 1 to 3, this court is inclined to accept and maintain the same,” the bench said.  

Case Title: Raj Pal Singh Vs Rajveer & Ors

Bench: Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria