Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Having found that the motive has not been proved and the recovery being doubtful despite the presence of scores of independent witnesses on both occasions, the Court in the first instance deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant.

5. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, despite concurring with the views expressed by the trial Court qua the last seen theory, nonetheless accepted the evidence of PW2 with respect to the motive coupled with the recoveries made. Though the trial Court eschewed the evidence of the Ballistic Expert, which remained inconclusive with respect to the bullet which caused the death, relatable to the gun belonging to the appellant, the High Court felt that it could be relied upon. Incidentally, it was held that the wooden piece of the butt did belong to the appellant. Therefore, the circumstances forming a chain were sufficient enough to point out guilt towards him and accordingly the High Court rendered a conviction.

6. Learned counsel, Mr. Krishan Kumar, appearing for the appellant submitted that the well-merited judgment of the trial Court ought not to have been reversed by the High Court by replacing its own views. Having accepted the views of the trial Court as a plausible one, the conviction ought not to have been rendered. There was no link in the circumstantial chain as held by the  High Court. Motive has not been established in the manner known to law. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes more importance. The opinion of the Ballistic Expert was rightly taken note of by the trial Court and in fact used in favour of the appellant, being inconclusive. The manner in which recoveries were made at the first instance during the inspection of the place of occurrence and thereafter at the instance of the appellant were rightly doubted by the trial court. The suspicion created by the trial Court has not been dispelled. As there is no perversity in the decision of the trial Court, the reversal at the hands of the High Court is unwarranted.

18.The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a scientific evidence in the nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing the offence.

19.All the aforesaid aspects have been considered threadbare by the trial Court. We do not find any perversity in it and the law presumes double presumption in favour of the accused after a due adjudication by the trial Court. We do believe that the High Court could have been slower in reversing the order of acquittal rendered by the Court of First Instance.