IMPORTANT POINT
As the order of acquittal rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in favour of appellants was based on clearly on its perverse and unreasonable reasoning against the weight of evidence, the High Court was perfectly justified in interfering in appeal against acquittal and in coming to its own conclusion by appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-This is an appeal by two appellants who were accused Nos. 4 and 5 respectively before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1975. They have preferred this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C. ) read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8th December 1978 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1976 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. By the said decision the High Court set aside the order of acquittal of the appellants rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in the aforesaid Sessions Case and convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (in brief IPC ) for having caused murders of Sohan Lal and Kanahiya and accordingly they were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellants were also convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC for having caused grievous hurt to Ram Pal and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC for having caused simple injuries to Smt. Attro and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. Pending this appeal by an order of this Court dated 31st August 1979 the appellants were ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing security of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount plus a personal recognizance bond of the same amount. The appellants were also directed to report to the Police Station, Kalkaji once in a fortnight and were not permitted to leave Delhi without the permission of the Sessions Judge, Delhi.

2. This appeal reached for final hearing before us. As it is a statutory appeal, learned senior counsel for the appellants Shri Jain and learned counsel for the respondent State took us through the relevant evidence on record in support of their respective cases. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. As will be shown hereinafter we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the contentions canvassed by learned senior counsel for appellants and in our view the orders of conviction and sentence rendered by the High Court against both the appellants remain well sustained on record.

Salient Features of the Prosecution Case

3. At the outset we may briefly refer to the main features of the prosecution case against the appellants centering round the incident in question. On 18th December 1974 at Village Tughlakabad situated in near vicinity of Delhi, at about 9.00 a.m. criminal assault is said to have taken place in the baithak or sitting room to injured witness Ram Pal. Eleven accused were alleged to have been involved in the said criminal assault. They were accused No. 1 Rishi, accused no. 2 Likhi Ram, accused No. 3 Chandgi, accused No. 4 Hari Chand ( appellant No.1 before us), accused No. 5 Sarup Singh (appellant No. 2 before us), accused No. 6 Baleshwar, accused No. 7 Milkha, accused No. 8 Dineswar Kumar, accused No. 9 Hukam Singh, accused No. 10 Badle and accused No. 11 Khazan. It is the case of the prosecution that injured witness Smt. Attro is the real sister of injured witness Ram Pal, P.W.8, Ram Pal had two step-brothers, namely, Sohan Lal and Kanahiya. Both were done to death in the said criminal assault. Ram Pal, P.W.8, has his residential house in Tughlakabad. Adjacent to his house is the house of his step-brother Kanahiya (deceased). The prosecution case further is that while Ram Pal had constructed his house, his house obstructed the house of accused Milkha and completely covered the ventilator of Milkha s house. This happened about two years before the incident in question. The further case of the proseuction is that accused Likhi Ram used to visit the house of his brother-in-law