State vs Seenappa

M.F. Saldanha, J.—We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor. It is true that this is another prosecution u/s 302, Indian Penal Code where an acquittal has resulted principally because of several factors, the first being the aspect of delay and a series of inter se inconsistencies coupled with the usual credibility problem. The submission canvassed by the learned State Public Prosecutor was that some level of infirmities would always be present as it would be difficult to find a perfect case but that the substratum of the evidence is what accounts and that if all of this is carefully compiled after rejecting that which is required to be culled, that the charges could still be brought home. In principle, the learned Counsel is right when he points out that a Court is required to go through this exercise and salvage the good from the not so good material but in the present instance after having heard the learned Counsel on merits and having examined the record area by area, we find certain difficulties in our way. The infirmities are not only superficial but several of them are rather deep seated. Secondly, even though we have gone through the exercise of considering the effect of whatever material could be looked at safely, in our considered view, it would be hazardous to base a conviction on this material alone because a Court cannot lose sight of the fact that if the rejected material virtually outweighs that which survives, it creates a serious credibility problem. It is in this background that, after having virtually heard the case on merits, we are not inclined to disturb the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

The appeal accordingly fails on merits and stands dismissed.