Raju and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand
Background
Following a late-night altercation in Vikasnagar, Dehradun in 1994, two young men returning from a cinema show were allegedly attacked with knives and lathis by four men, including the appellant Raju. The trial court acquitted all the accused, finding the prosecution's evidence unreliable, but the Uttarakhand High Court partly reversed that acquittal on the State's appeal, convicting Raju and one co-accused under Section 307 IPC and sentencing them to seven years' imprisonment. Raju appealed to the Supreme Court challenging this reversal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies undermining the prosecution's case: the two injured witnesses contradicted each other and even themselves on cross-examination about who used a knife versus a lathi; the medical evidence did not clearly match the oral testimony; the FIR was lodged by the victim's father who was not present at the scene and relied on two alleged eyewitnesses who were never examined by police or produced at trial; and no motive was shown for the attack. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that where a trial court's acquittal is a plausible view of the evidence and not perverse, an appellate court should not readily overturn it. Concluding the evidence was too weak and doubtful to sustain a conviction, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's acquittal of the appellant.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot rest on contradictory witness testimony, an FIR from someone who did not witness the event, and "ghost" eyewitnesses who were never questioned or produced in court, and appellate courts should be slow to overturn a trial court's acquittal unless that view of the evidence was clearly unreasonable.