Unnatural Conduct and Material Contradictions by Interested Witnesses Reinforce Presumption of Innocence in Acquittal Appeals

The State appealed an acquittal order dated 30.07.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, in a trial involving 12 accused persons.

The prosecution alleged that on 28.05.1996, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant’s husband, Siddharajsing, with swords, dharias, and sticks over a land dispute involving the deceased's step-mother (Accused No. 3).

During the trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. However, the complainant (PW-2) gave contradictory testimony in cross-examination, and several eye-witnesses and panchas (independent witnesses) turned hostile.

1. Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, resulting in a perverse judgment of acquittal

2. Whether the testimony of the interested witnesses (PW-2, PW-4, and PW-6) was reliable enough to sustain a conviction despite material contradictions

3. Whether the Appellate Court should interfere with an order of acquittal where two reasonable views are possible

The court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

The court relied on the principle that the presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal.

The court cited Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, establishing that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible.

It further applied Section 134 of the Evidence Act, noting that quality, not quantity, of witnesses matters, as affirmed in Jagdish v. State of Haryana (2019) 7 SCC 711.

Inderjeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the reliability of interested witnesses and unnatural conduct.

PW-2 (the complainant) admitted in cross-examination that she falsely impleaded certain individuals based on village hearsay and identified an assailant who had been dead for ten years.

The court noted that if 12 people had attacked the deceased with various weapons, the medical report should have reflected multiple injuries, yet only one fatal head injury was recorded.

The lack of electricity at the scene cast doubt on the witnesses' ability to identify the assailants in the midnight darkness.

The court observed that the conduct of PW-6 (brother of the deceased) was unnatural as he failed to intervene.

Applying the Chandrappa doctrine, the court determined that the trial court's view was a "reasonable" one and not perverse, as the recovery panchnamas were not proved and the primary witnesses were deemed unreliable.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment of acquittal.

The accused's bail bonds were cancelled, and the acquittal was upheld.