Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in 1987 Murder Case: CBI vs. Shyam Bihari & Others (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 623

Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Manoj Misra, J.

Can a High Court reject an appeal against acquittal when the trial court’s decision is based on a plausible view of the evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a 1987 murder. The court examined the evidence and circumstances to determine if the High Court was correct in upholding the acquittal of the accused. This judgment clarifies the scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal. The bench comprised Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, with the judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

On the night of June 24, 1987, Raj Kumar Baliyan was killed. Pramod Kumar Tyagi (PW-6) filed a First Information Report (FIR) stating that while he, Sudeep (PW-3), and Raj Kumar Baliyan were traveling on scooters, they encountered three policemen near Bhatoda turn. One policeman had a stick, and the other two had rifles. The police flashed a torch, causing the scooters to skid. Shots were fired, and Raj Kumar Baliyan died at the scene. PW-3 and PW-6 escaped to the village. The police and villagers arrived, and the deceased was taken to the hospital but died on the way. PW-6 then lodged the FIR.

A second version of the incident was filed by Mahindra Singh on June 25, 1987. This version stated that a robbery had occurred in the village on May 26, 1987, and villagers and police were maintaining a vigil. On June 24, 1987, around 9:00 PM, a man alerted them that criminals were coming on motorcycles and scooters. When the scooters arrived, the police flashed torch lights and signaled them to stop. The riders fired shots, and in response, police and villagers fired back. One of the riders, later identified as Raj Kumar, was caught and beaten. An inspector arrived and interrogated Raj Kumar, who was then taken to the hospital. Two empty cartridges were recovered from the spot.

The investigation was initially assigned to CB-CID and then to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI filed a charge sheet against Anil Kumar, Shyam Bihari, and Arshad Ali (the respondents) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court framed charges against them, and they pleaded not guilty.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, the third Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), C.B.I., Dehradun, acquitted the accused on 13.12.2011. The State filed a time-barred appeal along with a delay condonation application and an application seeking leave to appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court condoned the delay but rejected the application seeking leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal on 26.07.2012. The High Court found that the prosecution’s case relied on three eyewitnesses, PW-3, PW-6, and PW-15. PW-3 and PW-6 could not identify the accused, and PW-15 was deemed unreliable. Additionally, the medical evidence indicated that the deceased died from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle, which was with the accused.

Legal Framework

The case involves the application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court also considered Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which relates to appeals against acquittal.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:

“If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (CBI):

• The deceased was shot by individuals in police uniform.
• The three accused were on patrol duty that night, as per police records.
• The accused were present at the scene of the crime shortly after the incident.
• Empty cartridges found at the scene matched the service rifles of the accused.
• The second FIR (Case Crime No. 48A of 1987) confirms police action resulted in the death.
• Even if PW-3 and PW-6 could not identify the accused, their testimony corroborates the incident.
• PW-15 identified the accused and described the incident.
• The trial court’s verdict was perverse, and the High Court’s rejection of the appeal caused a miscarriage of justice.

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused):

• PW-3 and PW-6 could not identify the accused as the killers.
• The deceased died from a gunshot wound from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle.
• Some empty cartridges did not match the rifles of the accused, suggesting another shooter.
• PW-15 was unreliable as he did not promptly disclose the incident and his statement was made on an affidavit prepared by a lawyer.
• The accused had no motive to commit the crime.
• The circumstances were insufficient to prove the accused committed the crime.
• The trial court’s judgment was not perverse and did not warrant reversal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but assessed whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the appeal against acquittal. The core issue was whether the trial court’s decision was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, warranting interference by the appellate court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The court relied on general principles of criminal law regarding the appreciation of evidence in appeals against acquittal.

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

The court did not explicitly cite any authorities, but applied the general principles of criminal law in assessing the evidence. The court considered the following:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered the definition of murder, but found that the evidence did not establish the accused had committed the act.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered the concept of common intention, but found that the circumstances did not prove the accused had a common intention to commit the crime.
• Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The court considered the provisions related to appeals against acquittal, but found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision.

The court emphasized that an appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is possible, especially when the trial court’s view is plausible and not based on misreading of evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court noted that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s version of events. The court also emphasized the importance of a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The following points weighed in the mind of the court:

• The failure of PW-3 and PW-6 to identify the accused as the perpetrators.
• The unreliability of PW-15’s testimony due to delayed disclosure and the unusual manner in which his statement was recorded.
• The medical evidence indicating that the deceased died from a .12 bore weapon, not a rifle, which was with the accused.
• The presence of empty cartridges at the scene that did not match the accused’s rifles, suggesting the involvement of another shooter.
• The lack of a clear motive for the accused to commit the crime.
• The absence of a complete chain of circumstances that would conclusively prove the accused’s guilt.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of another shooter, and found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was not perverse and did not warrant reversal.

“It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.”

“Here the circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime. In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.”

“For all the reasons as stated above, we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter only for the High Court to rewrite the judgment as the same, in our view, would be an exercise in futility.”

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless the trial court’s view is perverse or based on misreading of evidence.
• The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a complete chain of circumstances is necessary to establish guilt.
• Eyewitness testimony must be reliable and consistent.
• Medical and ballistic evidence must corroborate the prosecution’s case.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the evidence is not conclusive.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s acquittal if the trial court’s view is plausible and based on proper appreciation of evidence. This reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to reject the appeal against the acquittal of the accused. The court found that the trial court’s decision was based on a plausible view of the evidence and that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a complete chain of circumstances and reliable evidence in criminal cases.