ORDER

The six accused-respondents were tried for and convicted of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 302 IPC (3 counts). In appeal, the High Court set aside their convictions and acquitted them. Aggrieved thereby the appellant, who happens to be the wife of one of the three deceased and figured as an eye witness to the incident, filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.

2. On perusal of the impugned judgment we find that the principal reason which weighed with the High Court in setting aside the convictions of the accused-respondents is that the statement (Ext. D1) made by the appellant (who also claimed to have been assaulted by the accused persons during the incident) before a Magistrate which was initially recorded as her dying declaration but was subsequently treated as a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in view of her survival and the report (Ext. P1) that she lodged with the police (which was treated as the First Information Report) contradicted each other materially. In our considered view, this approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently wrong. It is trite that a case has to be decided on the bas