Important Point
Judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court based on misconception of scope of proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. and erroneous appreciation of evidence on record is totally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 174-Interpretation of-Inquest panchanama-Ambit and scope of proceedings u/s 174-Object of proceedings u/s 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and apparent cause of death-Question regarding details as to how deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted-Foreign to ambit and scope of proceedings u/s 174-Pedda Narayana s case, 1975 (Suppl.) SCR 84 : Relied on. (Para 10)
       (ii) Appeal Against Acquittal -Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Judgment of acquittal passed by High Court-Challenged-Appreciation of evidence-High Court heavily placed reliance upon contents of inquest panchanama and contrasted with recitals in FIR-Evidence of eye witnesses PW1 and PW2 disbelieved on ground that their evidence is inconsistent with recitals in inquest panchanama-Erroneous appreciation of prosecution evidence on record-Homicidal death-Evidence of two eye witnesses is totally unblemished - PW1 is brother of deceased-FIR lodged by PW1 in all material particulars corroborated his evidence-All necessary details about assault including role and weapon used by each accused persons referred to in FIR-Presence of both these witnesses not doubtful-Judgment of High Court is totally unsustainable and needs to be set aside-Having regard to passage of time, death sentence commuted to imprisonment for life.
       Held : The impugned judgment of the High Court is not only erroneous on interpretation of Section 174 Cr.P.C. but it suffers from serious infirmity as regards appreciation of evidence on record in proper perspective. We are conscious that we are dealing with the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. Unless, we find that the impugned judgment is based on misconception of law and erroneous appreciation of evidence on record, this Court would not interfere with the judgment of acquittal. (Para 8)
       While disbelieving the correctness and reliability of the FIR, the High Court heavily placed reliance upon the contents of the inquest panchanama (Panchayatnama) prepared under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code and contrasted with the recitals in the FIR. The High Court held that in the inquest panchanama, it was recorded that Shanker Lal was shot dead by fire arm but it did not make any reference to the fact that Shanker Lal was also assaulted by banka. The investigating officer had failed to record any injury on the person of Shanker Lal having been caused by banka. (Para 9)
       The interpretation of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code sought to be given by the High Court is apparently contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Pedda Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1975 (Supp.) SCR 84. (Para 10)
       There is no serious challenge to the evidence of Mangal (PW 1) and Chhote Lal (PW 2) that they were going along with Shanker Lal to Lucknow. The presence of both these witnesses, therefore, cannot be doubted. If this be so, in our opinion, the High Court had committed a serious error in not appreciating the evidence of these two eye witnesses in a proper perspective and had erroneously discarded the prosecution story on an erroneous interpretation of Section 174 Cr.P.C. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the judgment of the High Court is totally unsustainable and needs to be set aside. (Para 12)
       Further held : Consequent upon conviction of all the four accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial court awarded a capital punishment to abdul Ali (A-1) and imprisonment for life to A-2 to A-4 vide its judgment and order dated 31st August, 1988 and made a Reference to the High Court. The High Court, however, rejected the reference; allowed the criminal appeals filed by the four accused persons and acquitted each one of them vide its order dated 1st December, 1988. Present appeals were filed in 1990 and they are being disposed of in April, 1997. Having regard to the passage of time, we do not think it proper to confirm the death sentence awarded to Abdul Ali (A-1) by the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge. We reject the reference. We uphold the conviction of A-1 to A-4 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence each of the accused persons to suffer imprisonment for life. (Para 13)

Judgment

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-The village Tilokpur consists of several hamlets, of which Kurthara is one where Abdul Ali son of Maikoo (A-1) was residing but lateron he shifted to village Tilokpur. Mustaffa (A-2) was also residing at village Kurthara but thereafter shifted to village Tilokpur. Vikram (A-3) and Ramanuj (A-4) are the residents of village Kurthara. All these four accused persons happened to be close friends of each other, of whom, Abdul Ali (A-1) was the Pradhan of Tilokpur Gram Panchayat for about fifteen years until he lost the election to the post of Pradhan to Shanker Lal (since deceased). At the time of incident which took place on December 24, 1983, undisputedly Shanker Lal was the Pradhan who belonged to the opposite group. The accused and in particular Abdul Ali (A-1) did not cherish the success of Shanker Lal as the Pradhan of village Tilokpur. The victory of Shanker Lal as the Pradhan was celebrated by his supporters in the village which added an additional insult to the ego of A-1. According to the prosecution, these factors led to the strained and inimical relations between the two groups, one headed by A-1 and the other by Shanker Lal.

2. It is alleged by the prosecution that a year prior to the incident in question, A-1 and his associates had attempted to commit the murder of Shanker Lal, but he survived and at the material time a criminal case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against them. A case under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also pending against A-1.

3. According to the prosecution, a day before the incident in question, Shanker Lal received a notice relating to the No Confidence Motion being moved against him. It was alleged that A-1 and his associates were instrumental in moving this No Confidence Motion . Shanker Lal, therefore, on December 24, 1983 i.e. the date of incident left his house at about 7.30 a.m. along with his brother Mangal (PW 1) and uncle Chhote Lal (PW 2) and reached the house of Dwarika Prasad (DW 1) to discuss about the No Confidence Motion . In the said meeting, it was decided to challenge the validity of the No Confidence Motion before an appropriate forum and to obtain a stay order; for that purpose, they were to go to Lucknow. Dwarika Prasad (DW 1) told Shanker Lal and his associates to go ahead and he would join after a short time. Accordingly, Shanker Lal, Mangal and Chhote Lal left the house of Dwarika Prasad and when they reached near the house of Dhanendra Jain, A-1 armed with his double barrel gun, A-2 and A-3 armed with katta (country made pistol) and A-4 armed with banka suddenly appeared on the scene of offence and encircled Shanker Lal. A-4 used filthy language against Shanker Lal. A-1 then suddenly fired at Shanker Lal. A-4 assaulted Shanker with banka whereas A-2 and A-3 fired from their katta (country made pistol). Shanker Lal on receiving a gun shot and other injuries fell down and died at the spot. This incident happened at about 8.45 a.m. The sound of fire arms and the cries raised by Mangal and Chhote Lal attracted the attention of a couple of persons including Mahadin and Mahabir. All the accused thereafter fled away.

4. Mangal (PW 1) dictated the report of the incident to his uncle Chhote Lal (PW 2) and was signed by both of them. They carried the report to the police station Masauli, Distt. Barabanki and handed it over to HC Sukhanta Ram (PW 3) who prepared the FIR (Ex.Ka-2) and registered the case at about 1.00 p.m. Mohan Lal Pandey (PW 6), the SHO along with police force reached the place of incident for necessary investigation. After drawing up an inquest panchanama (Ex.Ka-5) on the dead body, it was sent for post mortem examination through constable Jagdish Pandey and village Chowkidar Rahmat Ali. Dr. Ram Mohan (PW 4) held the autopsy on the dead body on 25th December, 1983. Mohan Lal Pandey (PW 6) then prepared several panchanamas and recorded the statements of various witnesses. During the course of inv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 813

Important PointJudgment of acquittal passed by the High Court based on misconception of scope of proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. and erroneous appreciation of evidence on record is totally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

Cases Referred (1)

Important Point
Judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court based on misconception of scope of proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. and erroneous appreciation of evidence on record is totally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.