Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has affirmed acquittal of a man, his son and another person in a case of murdering his nephew, a serving Indian Army captain in Uttar Pradesh's Ghaziabad in 1996 due to family dispute on division of property.
A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria said, reversal of acquittal should not be a matter of course just because the other view is considered to be possible by the appellate court.
Even when the appellate court re-appreciates the evidence while dealing with the judgment and order of acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused acquitted from the charges of offences would be a weighty rebuttable factor, the court emphasised.
"There must exist “substantial and compelling reasons” to upset the acquittal and once the court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is reinforced," the bench said.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by Raj Pal Singh against the Allahabad High Court's October 10, 2012 judgment, which set aside conviction and sentence of life term awarded to Dharam Pal, his son Rajveer and their relative Sudhir in a case of killing Captain Praveen Kumar on June 7, 1996.
The High Court held, the entire story of the prosecution did not inspire credibility and was highly improbable. It also noted one of the accused was aged 65 years and had been suffering from cancer. It was alleged the accused, due to dispute over division of family property, dragged the deceased to a staircase and shot him dead.
The court found though the alleged weapon of offence, the licensed firearm belonging to accused Dharam Pal was recovered, no endeavour appeared to have been made to subject it to expert ballistic examination in order to establish whether the bullets or pellets which caused the fatal injuries had been fired therefrom.
"Upon a close consideration of the evidence appreciated by the High Court, the reading by the High Court is a plausible reading justifying the conclusion. The view taken by the High Court does not appear to this court to be in any way unreasonable or one which would warrant substitution by this court,'' the bench said.