IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to be slow in disturbing a finding of fact recorded by trial Court and should not interfere with the order of acquittal, as in the present case, taking a view different from the one taken by trial Court.

Headnote:Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1971-Section 2A -Trial Court vide its judgment dated 19.8.1978 acquitted the accused persons for offences u/ss 302, 307, 147, 148 r/w 149 and 120 IPC for committing murdersof four persons-The State s appeal, High Court vide its judgment convicted 9 out of 11 accused persons-Appeal to Supreme Court u/s 2A of 1971 Act variance in F.I.R. and deposition in Court-Eye witnesses not only interested but also making improvement evidence-Variance as to injuries, place of incident-Two views possible-Case not proved beyond doubt-Result-Appeal allowed-Case law discussed.
       Held : The High Court while dealing with the appeals against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the following propositions laid down by this Court, namely, (i) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the non-interference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court. (Para 9)
       [In this case] the High Court agreed with the trial court so far as the allegations regarding hatching of conspiracy was concerned but on appreciation of evidence and taking a different possible view, convicted the eight accused persons. (Para 14)
       What weighed most to the trial court for acquitting the accused persons was that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the sequence of circumstances narrated by the witnesses in the court was totally different than the occurrence detailed in the First Information Report. (Para 15)
       The trial Court had further found that the prosecution had come with a new case that the injuries to the deceased were not caused by the gun shots but with weapons like ballam, kanta and lathi. (Para 16)
       The Panchanamas prepared immediately after the occurrence showed that the deceased had received gun shot injuries but when examined by the doctor and in the post mortem report no such injury was noticed on the body of any of the deceased persons. (Para 17)
       Held : We feel that the trial court was not unjustified in coming to the conclusion that the occurrence has not taken place in the manner as stated by the witnesses in their depositions recorded in the court. Even if another view regarding the occurrence was possible, as taken by the High Court, the same could not be made a basis for setting aside the order of the trial Court in view of the settled position of law on the point. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the variance between the F.I.R. and the depositions made in the court, the mention of gun shot injuries in the panchanama and their absence in the F.I.R, the conflict between the statements of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and major contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the eye-witnesses, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to prove their case against the appellants beyond all shadows of doubt. The appellants are, therefore, held entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. To form an opinion giving the appellants-accused the benefit of doubt we have kept in mind the defence as projected and suggested by them to the witnesses during their cross-examination. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the High court convicting the accused persons and sentencing them to various imprisonments including the life imprisonment. We uphold the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the appellants. The appellants shall be set at liberty at once unless required in some other case. (Paras 18, 19 & 20)

Judgement Key Points

Facts

The appellants, along with others, were charged with offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 read with 149 and 120B IPC for the murders of Mulaim Singh, Munshi Singh, Itwari, and Ram Murti on 27 June 1977 at around 5 p.m. in Village Khiria Madhukar, Police Station Usehat, District Badaun, U.P. (!) [1000063410002] The FIR, lodged by Bhawar Pal Singh (PW1) at 10 p.m., alleged that 11 named accused persons, led by Pt. Hori Lal (A1) and armed with guns, ballams, kantas, and lathis, encircled the victims' house, fired shots from all sides, killing three victims on the roof and one on the ground after assaulting him with lathi, ballam, and kanta; they also took away Mulaim Singh's licensed gun. [1000063410002] The trial court acquitted all accused on 19 August 1978, finding major contradictions between the FIR and witness depositions (PWs 1, 4, 6), improvements in evidence, variance in injuries and place of incident (e.g., no gunshot wounds in post-mortems despite FIR and panchanamas mentioning them; new case in court that guns were fired in air and deaths caused by other weapons), unreliable eye-witnesses (interested, inconsistent identifications), and failure to prove case beyond reasonable doubt or conspiracy. (!) [1000063410004][1000063410012][1000063410014][1000063410015][1000063410016] The High Court, in the State's appeal, convicted nine accused (including appellants as A2-A6), acquitting two, but agreed on no conspiracy. (!) [1000063410013] The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 2(A) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1971. [1000063410001]

Ratio

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must be slow to disturb findings of fact recorded by the trial court, which had the advantage of observing witness demeanour, and should not interfere merely because another view of the evidence is possible; the presumption of innocence is reinforced by acquittal, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, especially amid material contradictions (e.g., between FIR, depositions, panchanamas, and medical evidence) and unreliable witness testimony. [1000063410006][1000063410007][1000063410008][1000063410017][1000063410018] The High Court erred in substituting its view for the trial court's probable findings without compelling reasons; appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside, trial court acquittal upheld. [1000063410014][1000063410017][1000063410019]

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-The appellants along with seven others were charged for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 read with Sections 149 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murders of Mulaim Singh, Munshi Singh, Itwari and Ram Murti. One of the accused persons, namely, Pothi died during the pendency of the trial. All the accused persons, facing the trial, were acquitted by the trial court. In the appeal filed by the respondent-State, the High Court convicted nine accused persons for various offences and sentenced them to imprisonments which ranged upto the imprisonment for life. Two of the accused persons, namely, Brijpal Singh (A10) and Beer Sahai (A11) were acquitted. Out of the 9 convicted persons the appellants who were arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the trial Court have preferred this appeal. The Accused Nos. A7, A-8 and A-9 did not file any appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentences and are reported to have died.

2. The present appeal has been filed, as a matter of right, under Section 2(A) of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1971. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the impugned judgment being contrary to law and facts deserves to be set aside. It is argued that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the well considered order of acquittal passed by the trial court and the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. The prosecution witnesses were not only interested and biased but had deposed contrary to the prosecution case as initially discussed in the First Information Report. The material contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses cannot be reconciled, making their deposition untrustworthy. It is further contended that as the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond doubt, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts.

3. In the present case occurrence is stated to have taken place on 27th June, 1977 at 5.00 p.m. in Village Khiria Madhukar, Police Station Usehat, District Badayun(U.P.), the FIR of which was lodged by Bhawar Pal Singh (PW1) at about 10 p.m. in the police station which was at a distance of about 15 kms. from the place of occurrence. The deceased persons, namely, Mulaim Singh is the father, Munshi Singh, uncle and Itwari, brother of the first informant and Ram Murti is stated to be an acquaintance of the family. The prosecution story, as narrated by the Informant (PW1) in the First Information Report is that about one year prior to the date of occurrence one Budhpal Singh was murdered and in connection with that case his father Mulaim Singh, his uncle Munshi Singh and others were facing the trial. It was alleged that the said case was filed on account of the old enmity of the deceased with one Pt. Hori Lal (A1). About 13-14 days prior to the date of occurrence the said Pt. Hori Lal, along with Ram Nath and others entered the house of one Lal Janki Prasad of the same village and assaulted him. Pt. Hori Lal was the leader of a gang and wanted to kill Mulaim Singh and Munshi Singh. On the date of occurrence the informant, his father Mulaim Singh, his cousin Radhey, Pt. Ram Saran, Latoori and Ram Murti came from Village Sakhrauli to their house where Munshi Singh, Itwari, Jasbhoo Singh and Ram Dayal were already present. At about 5 p.m. 11 named accused persons along with one unknown person, at the instance of Pt. Hori Lal, armed with guns, Ballams, kantas and lathis reached there. To save their lives Mulaim Singh and others went inside their house and closed the door. The accused persons encircled the house of the informant. Mulaim Singh went on the roof of the house along with his gun. Munshi Singh, Itwari and Ram Saran along with their guns followed him. The accused persons started firing from all the four sides. Mulaim Singh, Munshi Si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1355

IMPORTANT POINTIn an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to be slow in disturbing a finding of fact recorded by trial Court and should not interfere with the order of acquittal, as in the present case, taking a view different from the one taken by trial Court.

Facts

Ratio

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to be slow in disturbing a finding of fact recorded by trial Court and should not interfere with the order of acquittal, as in the present case, taking a view different from the one taken by trial Court.