********

The Supreme Court of India set aside a Bombay High Court order that had remitted a 1988 murder case back to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration . Re-appreciating the prosecution's evidence, the Supreme Court found it highly suspect and insufficient for conviction . The alleged motive was factual contradicted , the eye-witnesses were categorized as unreliable chance witnesses who exhibited highly unnatural conduct , and the medical evidence directly conflicted regarding the deceased's capacity to make a conscious dying declaration . Additionally, the recovery of a weapon with human blood under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was ruled insufficient to sustain a conviction in isolation . Reaffirming that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, the Court restored the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal and ordered the immediate release of the accused

The case arose from an incident on February 14, 1988, involving the brutal murder of a man named Qavi . The Sessions Court evaluated the evidence threadbare and acquitted the accused (appellants) . The deceased’s brother (Respondent 1) filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Bombay High Court against the acquittal . Following a complex legal journey—including an earlier remand by the Supreme Court because the accused had not been heard due to their counsel's death—the High Court again remitted the case to the Additional Sessions Judge to re-examine eyewitness testimony, Section 27 recoveries, and chemical reports, while upholding the trial court's rejection of the dying declarations . The accused challenged this order of remit before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal . The Court's key findings were: Unreliable Eyewitnesses: The eyewitnesses (PW3, PW4, PW8) were deemed "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful . Despite being close acquaintances, none of them informed the police or took the bleeding victim to the hospital, despite a police station being just 5-7 minutes away . Improbable Dying Declarations: There was a stark conflict in medical evidence . PW1 (initial doctor) testified that the deceased was brought unconscious and never regained consciousness, whereas PW11 (surgeon) claimed he was conscious . In light of severe internal injuries to the left lung and heart, it was highly improbable that the deceased could speak clearly to name his five assailants . Inconsequent Section 27 Recovery: Although a weapon with human blood was recovered , the prosecution failed to confront eyewitnesses with it, and its physical description in court did not match . An isolated recovery under Section 27 cannot lead to conviction without a complete chain of corroborative circumstances . No Overturning of Plausible Acquittals: A trial court's acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence . An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is a plausible one, even if another view is possible.

This judgment reinforces core tenets of criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing that the primary presumption of innocence is further fortified by a trial court's acquittal . It lays down stringent standards for evaluating "chance witnesses," establishing that their evidence is unreliable if their post-incident conduct (such as failing to help the victim or notify authorities) is completely unnatural . Furthermore, it reiterates that weapon recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is only corroborative and cannot replace a complete chain of circumstantial guilt . Lastly, it clarifies that courts cannot convict accused persons based on sympathy or the mere gravity of an unavenged crime when the prosecution's evidence fails to withstand judicial scrutiny.