Important Point
Acquittal of other accused person against whom no acquittal appeal is filed can not be a ground for holding that eye-witnesses were trying to falsely implicate accused and, hence, their evidence should not be accepted.

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-This appeal, filed under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate jurisdiction) Act, 1973 and under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 58/1985. The High Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, 324 IPC and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.

2. The appellant was tried along with three other accused. The charge against them was that on 24.12.1981 at about 9.30 p.m. they had gone to the house of Pullery John (the deceased) and challenged the inmates of the house to come out. When John asked as to who they were, the appellant said that it was he and immediately thereafter a shot was fired by accused Thambi which injured John and caused his death. P.Ws. 1 to 5 were present in the verandha of the house at that time. P.W. 2 flashed his torch to find out who were the assailants. Immediately thereafter appellant fired a shot which caused injuries to P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4. As a result of the cries raised by the witnesses and the neigh­bours coming there all the accused ran away from that place.

3. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 on the grounds that their relations with the accused were inimical, they had made consistent improvements and their evidence stood contradicted by their police statements and the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. Exhibit P. 1, presence of P.W. 5 was not referred to and it was stated that both the shots were fired by the appellant. Therefore, the trial Court held that in all probability the accused were implicated falsely because of previous enmity.

4. Aggrieved by their acquittal the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 58/1985. The original informant also filed a revision petition to the High Court against their acquittal. The appeal and the revision peti­tion were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court found appreciation of the evidence by the Sessions Court unreasonable and it also noticed that various important aspects were not at all considered by the trial Court. The trial Court without considering the evidence of P.W. 16 had wrongly rejected the evidence regarding recovery of the appellant’s gun. The explanation given by the eye witnesses as regards the contradiction that both the shots were fired by the appellant was not considered by the trial Court. The High Court after re-appreciating the evidence held that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 deserved to be accepted as it was consistent and their presence at the place of incident was natural. Accepting their evi­dence the High Court held that all the accused had gone together to the house of the deceased, at that time the appellant and accused Thambi were armed with guns, and after reaching there the appellant had challenged John to come out. It further held that these circum­stances clearly established that the appellant and Thambi were acting in furtherance of their common intention of committing murder of John and causing hurt to other members of his family. The High Court, therefore, set aside the acquittal of the appellant and Thambi but did not convict Thambi as he had died during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court convicted the appellant alone for the offences stated above. As no over act was done by the remaining two accused their acquittal was confirmed.

5. Aggrieved by his conviction and the order of sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of eye witnesses ought not to have been believed as all of them stood contradicted by their police state­ments wherein they had stated that both the shots were fired by the appellant whereas before the Court they deposed that the first shot was fired by Thambi and second shot was fired by the appellant. They had changed their version in view of the report of the ballistic expert which shows that th