State Of Kerala vs Suresh @ Subhash & Ors
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 121
- Neutral2009 INSC 444
- SCR[2009] 6 SCR 10
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the trial court and appellate court have both conducted a detailed analysis of evidence and found the prosecution case to be neither cogent nor credible, the Supreme Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because learned counsel for the appellant contends that the accused should have been convicted, particularly where the evidence discloses significant credibility issues and procedural irregularities that cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's case. Where there are material discrepancies in the timing of events—such as when a First Information Report was lodged, when it was recorded, and when it reached the Magistrate—and these discrepancies have not been adequately explained by the investigating officer, this constitutes a proper basis for the courts below to question the authenticity and credibility of the prosecution's version and to direct acquittal. Where an injured witness is alleged to have given a detailed and lengthy First Information Report while in an Intensive Care Unit, and the physical and temporal circumstances make it improbable that such a lengthy report could have been composed at the time alleged, this improbability may properly inform the court's assessment of the witness's credibility and the reliability of the prosecution case.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Kerala High Court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by
the State questioning acquittal of five accused persons who faced trial in the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The trial court acquitted them of the
charges relatable to Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 449 and 302 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC').
The basic reason which weighed with the trial court to direct acquittal was the
unexplained delay relating to the FIR reaching the concerned Magistrate. Added to
that the authenticity of the report given by PWI was doubtful. The High Court found
that the evidence of PWI was not believable. There was doubt about the authenticity
of Ex. P1 and the unexplained delay in FIR reaching the Magistrate Court. Because
of the aforesaid factors the High Court found that there was no scope for any
interference. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PWI was an injured
witness and merely because the investigation was not done in proper manner, the
acquittal should not have been directed. Learned counsel for the respondent
supported the judgment.
We find that both the trial court and the High Court have analysed the evidence
in great detail to find the prosecution version to be not cogent and credible.
According to PWI she gave Ext. P1 FIR before ASI PW17 at 2.30 A.M. on 6.9.1996.
According to PW17 he recorded at 3.00 A.M. on 6.9.1996. But Ext. P1 reached the
Ilage Magistrate at 10.30 A.M. on 7.9.1996. The Investigating Officer has not
explained the delay. Further the trial court found if impossible physically for giving a
lengthy report (Ext. P1) while in Intensive Care Unit. The occurence is stated to have
taken place on 5.9.1996 at 8.15 P.M. According to PW5, he examined the injured
and deceased at 9.30 P.M. If that be so, it has not been explained as to how the FIR
came to be lodged at 2.30 A.M. on 6.9.1996. That being so, We find no scope for
interference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free