Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of six persons, including three Delhi police personnel, in case of murder of a man, while discarding testimony of the sole eyewitness, who was the father of the deceased due to his improbable conduct.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal noted appellant/complainant Chhote Lal remained a mere mute spectator when his son Kishan Sarup was assaulted and taken by the accused persons and thus concluded that his very presence at the time of the incident remained doubtful and the chain of events with regard to circumstantial evidence was not complete.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that in matters where the accused persons are convicted and sentenced by the trial court, the appellate court is normally slow in upsetting the conviction, more particularly in the light of the evidence on record, especially, that of the eyewitness (complainant). 

"He (the father) has not deposed anything as to why he had not tried to intervene and save his son from assault or stop the accused persons from taking him away in the car. He himself had not received any injuries. The statement that he could not do so on account of the threats extended by the accused persons appears to be a bald statement as no one in a situation where his son is being assaulted and carried away would remain a mere spectator," the bench said.

The court also found that the appellant/complainant happened to be the sole eyewitness but he had neither seen anyone killing his son Kishan Sarup nor he had deposed that he had seen anyone burning the victim Kishan Sarup. 

"Therefore, he is not actually an eyewitness either to the killing or to the burning of the deceased Kishan Sarup though he may be an eyewitness to the incident which took place on 04.11.2000 at 7 pm wherein a car had chased their motorcycle, pushed them towards the roadside making them fall in the bushes, thereupon assaulting the deceased Kishan Sarup and then taking him away in an injured position in the car," the bench said.

Among other reasons, the bench said the appellant/complainant stated in the FIR that the accused assaulted his son with a knife and iron rod. He didn’t mention about the use of a pistol by the accused. However, the police have recovered empty cartridge. Cause of death as per post-mortem is also firing from close range. 

As per the evidence on record, the very presence of the appellant/complainant even during the incident of November 04, 2000 appears to be doubtful, the court said.

"It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence," the bench said.

Out of 10 accused, six accused were convicted by the trial court. However, the High Court acquitted all the accused.

It has come on record that there was a serious enmity between two rival groups since 1986, which resulted in murder of Ram Kishan. In retaliation, Kishan Sarup of another group was killed.

The court declined to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, saying that the view taken by the High Court in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons appeared to be the most plausible view. 

"In the light of the evidence on record, both versions as was taken by the trial court and that by the High Court may appear to be the possible views. However, the conviction has to be based on the evidence which proves the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution in this case has failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial evidence and by means of evidence of the eyewitness. In respect of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events is not complete whereas the presence of eyewitness is also doubtful," the bench said.