Criminal Trial — Appreciation of evidence — Improbable prosecution story — Benefit of doubt

Criminal Law — Murder — Appeal against acquittal — Scope of interference — Presumption of innocence

Once an accused has been acquitted, the presumption of innocence stands reinforced. Interference by the appellate court is permissible only where there exist substantial and compelling reasons. If the view taken by the High Court is a plausible view based on evidence on record, the Supreme Court would not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. 

Criminal Trial — Appreciation of evidence — Improbable prosecution story — Benefit of doubt

Where the prosecution version suffers from material inconsistencies, improbabilities, unexplained circumstances regarding possession and use of weapons, and contradictions between earliest versions and later statements, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

Criminal Law — Eyewitness testimony — Credibility — Physical improbability

Eyewitness testimony loses credibility where the version projected is physically improbable, such as the alleged dragging of a serving Army officer by elderly and infirm persons in a narrow staircase without corroborative evidence. 

Criminal Appeal — Acquittal — Two possible views

If two reasonable views are possible on the evidence on record, the view favourable to the accused must prevail, and an order of acquittal ought not to be disturbed. Reliance placed on Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. 

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The appellant is the original complainant and father of the deceased, Praveen Kumar, a serving Captain in the Indian Army.

2. The prosecution case arose out of a family property dispute between the appellant and his brother Dharam Pal (Respondent No.2).

3. An initial incident on 07.06.1996 allegedly occurred during a village Panchayat.

4. A subsequent incident on 08.06.1996 allegedly involved the accused forcibly dragging Praveen Kumar and shooting him, leading to his death.

5. FIR initially registered under Section 307 IPC was later converted to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

6. The Trial Court convicted Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

7. The High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused.

8. The present appeal was filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW AND EVIDENCE

1. Credibility of Prosecution Version

The High Court found the prosecution story to be highly improbable, particularly:

• The alleged dragging of a serving Army Captain by three persons, one of whom was 65 years old and suffering from cancer.

• Absence of credible evidence regarding possession of firearms at the time of dragging.

• No explanation as to wherefrom the country-made pistol or hockey-stick was procured.

2. Contradictions in Earliest Version

• The Chowkidar’s report suggested firing by Dharam Pal.

• The complainant’s later report attributed firing to Rajveer on exhortation.

• Material improvements and inconsistencies were noticed between versions.

3. Medical and Forensic Gaps

• Though firearm injuries were noted in post-mortem, no ballistic examination was conducted to link the recovered weapon with the fatal injuries.

• This omission weakened the prosecution case materially.

4. Appreciation of Acquittal Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles:

• Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• The distinction between “may be proved” and “must be proved” is fundamental.

• Reliance placed on:

  • Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra

  • Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

The Court reproduced and applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal, particularly the doctrine of double presumption of innocence.

---

OPINION OF THE COURT (Ratio Decidendi)

The Supreme Court held that:

• The view taken by the High Court was a plausible view based on appreciation of evidence.

• The prosecution case suffered from material discrepancies, improbabilities, and lack of corroboration.

• There were no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal.

• Merely because another view was possible, interference was impermissible.

Accordingly, the Court declined to substitute its own view for that of the High Court.

---

FINAL HOLDING

• The appeal fails and is dismissed.

• Acquittal of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 affirmed.

• Interlocutory applications do not survive.