LAW FOR ALL

How to assess evidence = Ramesh Gadhave, PW-5 is the paan shop owner, who has stated in his evidence that the accused had come to his shop along with a child between 1.00 P.M. to 1.30 P.M., purchased four chocolates, gave those to the child and went towards Satara side. In the cross-examination he admitted that he is not expected to remember who comes to his paan shop and taking this into account, the High Court has rejected his evidence. We find ourselves unable to endorse the conclusion of the High Court. This witness has emphatically stated that the accused had come to his paan shop along with a child who was weeping, purchased chocolates and gave them to the child. He may not be expected to remember each and every customer but fact of the matter is that in the case in hand he had identified the accused and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, his evidence is not fit to be rejected only on the ground pointed out by the High Court. The STD Booth owners from where the accused had made the calls have also identified the accused. Not only that, the discovery of various articles at the instance of the accused, the entries of the Telephone Department showing the calls made to the father, opening of the bank account and the deposit of money coupled with the evidence of the two teachers, the paanwala and the STD Booth owners, in our opinion, complete the chain and point towards the guilt of the accused. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the chain of circumstances clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and the High Court erred in acquitting him. We may herein observe that acquittal of an accused who has committed the crime causes grave injustice in the same manner as that of conviction of an innocent person. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore that of the trial court.