Acquittal in Terror Case Upheld Due to Failure to Associate Independent Witnesses and Defective Investigation

The Appellant (State) challenged the acquittal of the Respondents, who allegedly worked as informers for the Special Cell of the Delhi Police and the Intelligence Bureau (IB).

The Special Cell claimed that on February 9, 2006, based on secret information, a raiding party apprehended the Respondents at Mukarba Chowk after they alighted from a JKSRTC bus coming from Jammu.

Police alleged the recovery of pistols, cartridges, detonators, timers, and explosives from their person.

Conversely, the Respondents contended they were falsely implicated after refusing to go undercover in a terrorist camp in Jammu.

A CBI inquiry, directed by the High Court in related proceedings, resulted in a Closure Report asserting that the Respondents were actually kidnapped and illegally detained by police weeks prior to the alleged arrest and that the recoveries were planted.

The Trial Court acquitted the Respondents on December 22, 2016.

The Court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal and Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the presumption of regularity of official acts.

The Court relied on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali regarding the court's duty to consider both the police report and the CBI's Closure Report.

The Court further applied the "two-views theory" and the standard for reversing acquittals as established in Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana (scrutiny of police witnesses), Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal), and Mohan v. State of Karnataka (requirement of perversity for interference).

The Court found that while police testimony can be sufficient for conviction, it requires careful scrutiny when independent evidence is absent.

The prosecution failed to associate any independent witnesses despite the apprehension occurring at a busy public junction near an IGL station and a police booth.

Significant investigative lapses were noted: private vehicles were used without logbook entries, no fingerprints were lifted from the weapons, and the bus driver/conductor were not examined.

Crucially, the Special Cell failed to lead evidence regarding Call Data Records (CDR) to rebut the CBI’s findings that the Respondents' phones were switched off and they were in illegal custody long before the alleged incident.

The Court observed that the site plan was sketchy and the lack of protective gear (bullet-proof jackets) during a supposed terrorist apprehension cast doubt on the police version.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding no grounds to disturb the "double presumption of innocence" afforded to the Respondents after their acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal upheld, and the Respondents' bonds discharged.