IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot reverse well reasoned acquittal recorded by trial Court without dislodging the reasons given by trial Court on the basis of another view which was possible to be taken.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34 or 304 Part II/34-Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder-PW2 (husband) took his wife for treatment to appellants Sadhus from evil sprit-They beated his wife with iron, trishul and chimta from which she died-Appellants charged under Sections 302/34 IPC but were acquitted-High Court convicted them under Sections 304 Part II/34 IPC-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Testimony of PW2 found unreliable-Improvement made in the manner of beating, whether beating was done by tying to tree or not-Contradiction in apprehension of danger to life of wife and non-interference to stop in doubt-Delay in 18 hours in lodging FIR-No weapons recovered-Sessions Judge acquitted for these serious infirmities-High Court reversing acquittal by lightly ignoring reasons of trial Court-But High Court convicted appellants u/s 304 Part II/34 IPC sentencing then to RI of 10 years and fine-Whether High Court was right in its approach? (No)-Result-Acquittal upheld-Appeal allowed.
       Held : A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that there is no reference to the statements of the witnesses at least on material aspects of the prosecution case. The judgment contains narration as to prosecution story, arguments of the learned counsel and reproduction of injuries found on the deceased running into four pages, the reasons and discussion is only found in one paragraph and portion from the said paragraph is already extracted above. In the penultimate paragraph the High Court only states that the case of murder was not spelt out as there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death but they could be safely attributed with the knowledge that death could be caused in such a situation and as such convicted them for offence punishable under Section 304-II, IPC. In our view the approach of the High Court and consideration of the case that too for reversal of the order of acquittal has been unsatisfactory and if we may say so it has been casual. The High Court did not consider the case before it, as it ought to have been by a court of first appeal on facts. The High Court did not dislodge the reasons given by trial court for acquittal. Further the evidence was neither discussed nor scrutinized nor analysed to show how the trial court was wrong in appreciating the evidence, considering the probabilities of the case and recording findings. (Paras 10 & 11)
       Held finally : No interference by the High Court in such an appeal was called for or warranted when the reasons given by the trial court for recording acquittal are good and sturdy. The trial court had the advantage and benefit of observing during the trial the demur and conduct of the witnesses from its commencement to completion and with that background on proper and objective appreciation of the evidence as a whole recorded a finding of acquittal supported by reasons. The High Court could not upset an order of acquittal as if it was another trial court to record conviction forgetting that it was sitting in first appeal against an order of acquittal. The High Court failed to keep in its mind the well-settled principles in the matter of reversing an order of acquittal. Assuming one other view was possible to be taken by the High Court, that was not enough in the light of well-settled position in law. In this case, having regard to the discussion made and reasons given by the trial court, extracted above, it cannot be said that the appreciation of evidence was perverse or arbitrary or findings recorded were based on no evidence or material evidence was not considered. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error in convicting and sentencing the accused, reversing the order of acquittal merely because it could take a different view. In a case like this it is the duty of this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order so as to do substantial justice. In the result for the reasons stated above the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside, that of the trial court is restored and the appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The appeal is ordered accordingly. (Paras 13, 14 & 15)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-In this appeal, by special leave, the appellants have assailed the judgment of the High Court reversing the order of acquittal made in their favour by the trial court and convicting them under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, Is that PW-2 Ram Charan and Vidya Rani, the deceased, had been married about 18 years prior to the incident. At about 6/7 P.M. on 4th August, 1989, Ram Charan took his wife to the dera of the appellants situated in village Sahera for getting her treated from the evil spirits, which had seized her. Kewal Nath, a co-accused, and Pritam Nath, appellant No. 1, claimed to be Sadhus in the said dera and the appellants Nos. 2 and 3, viz., Pritam Singh and Raghbir Singh, were their chelas, who were all present there. PW-2 Ram Charan told them that his wife had been seized by evil spirits and requested them to help and treat her, whereupon these appellants and Kewal Nath, the co-accused, tied Vidya Rani to a tree and started giving blows with iron rods, trishul and chimtas on various parts of her body. Witnessing the same for some time PW-2 got alarmed and tried to intervene telling them that the treatment might kill her. The accused, however, assured him that Vidya Rani would not die. However, she became unconscious during the night. The next day at about 1.00 P.M., PW-2 came to know that his wife had been died. Then he raised a roula, which attracted Bhagwan Singh, Balbir Singh, Bhola Ram and Surinder Singh. Then he left for the police station, Mulepur with Bhola Ram and Surinder Singh and reached there at about 2.00 P.M. In the police station his statement Ex. PD was recorded and further investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation challan was filed. They were tried by the sessions court for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. After trial the learned sessions judge, for the reasons recorded in the judgment, held that the prosecution failed in its efforts to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted them. The State filed appeal in the High Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The High Court found fault with the order of acquittal and held accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. Hence they were convicted and sentenced as already stated above.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the High Court was not right in reversing the order of acquittal adopting an approach contrary to well-settled position in law as expressed in various pronouncements of this Court. The order of acquittal did not call for interference as it was not based on a misreading of evidence or otherwise perverse. Merely because the High Court could perhaps take a different view was not a ground for disturbing the judgment of acquittal. The learned counsel further pointed out that there was delay of 18 hours in lodging the FIR for which there was no proper explanation although Ram Charan claimed to have been an eye witness to the incident; there were serious contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses; PW-2 was the only so called eye witness, whose evidence was unreliable and unsafe to convict the appellants as rightly recorded by the trial court giving various reasons for not relying on his evidence; the High Court lightly brushed aside the reasons given by the trial court for acquitting the appellants.

5. In opposition, the learned counsel for the State made submissions supporting the impugned judgment adopting the reasons given in the impugned judgment.

6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The sustainability of the impugned judgment is to be tested on the basis of crystalised judicial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 750

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court cannot reverse well reasoned acquittal recorded by trial Court without dislodging the reasons given by trial Court on the basis of another view which was possible to be taken.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot reverse well reasoned acquittal recorded by trial Court without dislodging the reasons given by trial Court on the basis of another view which was possible to be taken.