New Delhi, Aug 3 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the acquittal of 20 persons in a 2014 murder case arising out of a Holi-day clash in Maharashtra’s Washim district, holding that the Bombay High Court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt was a “reasonable and possible view” based on the evidence on record.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih dismissed separate appeals filed by the victim’s mother and the Maharashtra government challenging the Bombay High Court’s 2022 judgment acquitting the accused after overturning their conviction by the trial court.
The trial court had convicted 20 accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murder of Avinash Chavhan and for attempting to murder three other injured victims in an incident that took place on March 18, 2014, following an earlier altercation over the playing of a DJ during Holi celebrations.
However, the High Court reappreciated the evidence and acquitted all the accused, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Declining to restore the conviction, the apex court held that the High Court was justified in doubting the prosecution case because of significant inconsistencies between the eyewitness account and the medical evidence, as well as the strikingly identical testimonies of six prosecution witnesses.
“The High Court was entitled to regard it as a circumstance raising a serious doubt as to whether these witnesses were speaking to what they had seen or to what they had been tutored to say. It is a settled principle that an identical and stereotyped version bears the imprint of tutoring rather than of truthful recollection,” the Justice Karol-led Bench said.
It also found no fault with the High Court’s reliance on the medical evidence, which did not fully support the prosecution’s version that four accused had repeatedly struck the deceased on the head with iron pipes.
“The High Court held it to be impossible that four persons, continuously giving repeated blows upon the head with different weapons, would land every blow upon the same site. This conclusion drawn by the High Court is not the product of conjecture, but it is an inference drawn from the medical evidence,” the judgment said.
The Supreme Court recorded that the High Court had also taken into account the absence of independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a residential locality, unexplained delays in recording statements of eyewitnesses, discrepancies in the FIR, lapses in handling the case property, and the prosecution’s failure to explain injuries sustained by some of the accused.
Reiterating the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Justice Karol-led Bench said an acquittal can be reversed only where it is shown to be perverse or based on a complete misreading of evidence. “It is, at the least, a reasonable and possible view and once it is such a view, it is not liable to be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by this Court. The threshold for interference is not crossed in the present case,” the apex court observed.
The Supreme Court added that while the High Court’s reasoning “is not free from imperfection”, any shortcomings at the margins did not undermine its ultimate conclusion, which rested on the medical improbability of the prosecution’s version and the unsafe identification of a large assembly based on interested and stereotyped testimony.
“Therefore, in our considered view, the acquittal recorded by the High Court is not the product of a perverse or capricious appreciation of the evidence but a reasoned conclusion resting upon the material on record,” it said.
With this, the apex court dismissed both the appeals filed by the informant and the Maharashtra government, declining to restore the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court.
“The prayer of the Appellant-informant and the State for the setting aside of that judgment and for the restoration of the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is declined,” the judgment said.
–IANS
pds/dan
