Important Point
Impugned judgment of the High Court reversing acquittal in statutory appeal u/s. 379 Cr.P.C. to Supreme Court does not warrant any interference as the approach of the Trial Court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. It is thus not a case of two reasonable views as argued by counsel for appellants needing any interference by Supreme Court. Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 379-Statutory appeal-Scope of the power of appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal -High Court not strictly proceeded in the manner required-But High Court’s judgment is well considered one - Proper course - To see whether Trial Court’s approach was patently erroneous and conclusions arrived at by it wholly untenable-S.C. found it was so and that it was not a case of two reasonable views - Trial Court’s view was not a reasonable view-Interference by High Court is justified - Appeal dismissed. (I.P.C. -Sections 302, 307 r/w Section 34 and explosive Substances Act, 1908-Section 3-Offences under in a case of Trade Unions Rivalary).
       Held : We have perused the judgment under appeal to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the aforementioned principles. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner laid down by this Court in Doshi’s case (supra), viz; first recording its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable, which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal though the High Court has rendered a well considered judgment duly meeting all the contentions raised before it. But then will this non-compliance per se justify setting aside the judgment under appeal? We think, not. In our view, in such a case, the approach of the Court which is considering the validity of the judgment of an Appellate Court which has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and whether the judgment of the Appellate Court is free from those infirmities; if so to hold that the trial Court judgment warranted interference. In such a case, there is obviously no reason why the Appellate Court’s judgment should be disturbed. But if on the other hand the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity, it cannot but be held that the interference by the Appellate Court in the order of acquittal was not justified; then in such a case the judgment of the Appellate Court has to be set aside as of the two reasonable views, the one in support of the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above discussion, we shall proceed to examine the judgment of the trial Court in this case. (Para 8)
       Further held : From the above discussion, it follows that the approach of the trial Court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. It is thus not the case where two reasonable views on examination of the evidence on record are possible and so the one which supports the accused, should be adopted. The view taken by the trial Court can hardly be said to be a view on proper consideration of evidence much less a reasonable view. Therefore, interference by the High Court in the appeal against acquittal of the appellant and recording the finding of their conviction for offences under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, on consideration of the evidence, is justified. The judgment under appeal does not warrant any interference. We find no merit in this appeal; it is accordingly dismissed. (Para 10)

Judgment

Quadri, J.-In this statutory appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1984 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, are the appellants. They assail the validity of the judgment of June 8, 1989 passed by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1986 setting aside their acquittal by the trial Court and convicting and sentencing them as follows: Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.-imprisonment for life; under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C.-rigorous imprisonment for seven years and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908-Imprisonment for five years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. In this case Trade Union rivalry between INTUC and CITU on the one hand and BMS on the other culminated into the atrocious incident of April 21, 1983 in which one Thanukuttan @ Nanukuttan died and three persons P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, suffered injuries. In respect of this incident the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and twenty other persons of whom A-13 died and the remaining were tried on the following facts for offences under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302 and 109 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The headload-workers employed in the Industrial Estate of Pappanamcode are members of either INTUC or CITU (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant group’) whereas ‘the accused group’ belongs to BMS union. The members of ‘the complainant group’ were preventing the members of ‘the accused group’ from working in the Industrial Estate. For this reason accused 1 to 20 of the accused group hatched a conspiracy to murder the headload-workers of the complainant group pursuant to which A-23 had agreed to supply the country made bombs on April 20, 1983. On the morning of April 21, 1983, accused A-21 and A-22 took the bombs to a bylane at Vettukuzhi near the Pappanamcode Industrial Estate and gave them to A-1 at 10.15 a.m. Thereafter with the common object of causing voluntary hurt and causing death of the members of the complainant group, A-1 to A-20 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at 10.45 a.m.; among them A-1 to A-3 were carrying bombs, A-4, A-5, A-10 to A-15 were carrying bricks and A-6 to A-9 and A-16 to A-20 were holding sticks. They proceeded to the said Industrial Estate where P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 7 among others were relaxing on the platform in front of General Metals as there was no work on that date. While one of them was reading magazine ‘Kumari’ weekly, the others were hearing and Nanukuttan was sleeping. After reaching there A-1 threw bomb at P.W. 1 who suffered injuries on hands and thighs; A-2 threw bomb at Nanukuttan who was severely injured and A-3 also threw bomb which fell in front of P.W. 2. A-4 and A-5 threw a brick at P.W. 2. A-6 to A-9, A-19 and A-20 attempted to beat P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. A-6 and A-19 beat P.W. 3 with sticks. A-10 to A-15 threw bricks at P.W. 1 and others whereas A-16 to A-18 attempted to beat P.W. 1 and others. Nanukuttan and P.W. 1 were taken to the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum where Nanukuttan was declared dead at about 11.15 a.m. In the Medical College Hospital P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2 and 4 were given treatment. P.W. 14, the doctor, examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and issued wound certificates Ext. P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively. P.W. 19, another doctor, conducted the post mortem examination of Nanukuttan, the deceased, and issued post-mortem certificate Ext. P-9.

3. To prove its case the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 22, marked Exts. P-1 to P-17 and got M.O.S. 1 to 7 identified. The accused marked Exts. D-1 to D-11 and XI. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. On considering the evidence on record the trial Court acquitted all the twenty two accused by its judgment dated February 22, 1985. The State appealed against that judgment and confined its submissions to accused A-1 to A-3.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 605

Cases Referred (1)