Acquittal Upheld Where Hostile Witnesses and Forensic Lapses Break the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence in Mass Casualty Offences

The State appealed the judgment dated 07.01.2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, which acquitted 10 respondents of charges under Sections 148, 120B, 396 IPC, the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substance Act

On 06.04.2010, at Tadmetla forest, Naxalites allegedly ambushed a CRPF patrol, killing 76 personnel and looting weapons

The prosecution examined 43 witnesses and 156 documents

However, the Trial Court found that all material prosecution witnesses turned hostile and failed to identify the accused as the perpetrators

The State challenged this acquittal, citing a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the seizure of explosives

1. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or illegal due to the alleged misappreciation of circumstantial evidence and confessional statements

2. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

The Court applied Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. regarding appeals against acquittal, emphasizing that interference is warranted only if the findings are "perverse" or "impossible"

It relied on the five-fold test for circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis of innocence

Additionally, the Court applied the principle from C. Antony v. Raghavan Nair, stating that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not substitute the Trial Court's view

The Court observed that there was a total lack of direct evidence or eyewitness testimony linking the respondents to the ambush

While 76 lives were lost, the prosecution failed to provide a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report to prove that the materials seized from the site were indeed explosives

The weapons and pipe bombs were recovered from the scene of the incident rather than the possession of the accused

The Court noted that the "confessional statement" under Section 164 Cr.P.C. lacked independent corroboration

Furthermore, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and the mandatory prosecution sanction under the Arms Act was missing from the record

The Court concluded that the prosecution’s case rested on mere suspicion, which cannot replace legal proof

It issued a stern directive to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police to ensure higher standards of investigation, including prompt FSL reporting, conducting TIPs, and obtaining necessary statutory sanctions in future cases involving national security