IMPORTANT POINT
When the trial Court had given good and weighty reasons for recording its conclusion on acquittal of accused, the High Court need not have substituted its view to reverse the view of trial Court.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34-Offences under-Trial Court acquitting gave cogent reasons of political vendicta, delayed FIR, faulty investigation, possibility of subsequent implication-High Court converted into conviction substituting its own view-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right in its approach? (No)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : We are of the view that when the case against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that these appellants have murdered Ibrahim and it is not safe to convict them. When the Trial Court had given good and weighty reasons for its conclusion, the High Court need not have substituted its view to that of the Trial Court. We cannot say that the view of the Trial Court is not a reasonable conclusion on facts. Hence, the High Court need not have interfered with the verdict of acquittal by the Trial Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal setting aside the order of the High Court while restoring that of the Trial Court. The appellants stand acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and the bail bonds furnished by them are cancelled.
        (Paras 17 and 18)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-This is an appeal against conviction for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code passed by the High Court in reversal of an Order of Acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions.

2. The Prosecution case is as follows:

That consequent to an election in the local High School Meppayur, Kozhikode, Kerala, there was some clash between two student political factions. The baton of clash was handed over to the respective parent political parties. During the ongoing clash, it is alleged that the deceased Ibrahim-a worker of Communist Party of India (Marxist) had entered into the nearby temple and beaten up some BJP/ RSS workers. It is also alleged that his entry had rendered the temple impure. Later on a meeting was said to be convened to condemn the entry of non-Hindu Ibrahim to the temple. This incident was cited as the motive of the accused to murder Ibrahim.

3. That on 28-12-1987 at about 7 PM PWs-2 and 3, brothers of deceased Ibrahim, came to his bakery for some money. While the three brothers were talking about the money matters in the verandah of the adjoining shop room, four persons who had come running attacked Ibrahim with lethal weapons. While trying to protect him PWs-2 and 3 also got injured. After the quick attack, a bomb exploded. Smoke engulfed the area. A whistle was blown. A jeep suddenly rushed to the spot, the four assailants got into the jeep and escaped. PWs -1, 4 and 22, who were talking in the nearby office of the CPI (Marxist), saw the incident and immediately went to the spot with some others. They saw Ibrahim sitting on a bench, leaning forward. PWs 1 and 4 took deceased Ibrahim, PWs 2 and 3 to Medical College Hospital which is about 48 Kilometers away from the spot. Within one hour after reaching the hospital, Ibrahim succumbed to the injuries.

4. That the local Sub-Inspector reached the place of occurrence within half-an-hour of the incident. He went back and made a brief note about the confrontation in the General Diary maintained in the Police Station. PW1 who went to the hospital returned on 29-12-1987 and lodged the FIR at 7.40 AM. It was sent to the Court at 5.40 PM on 30-12-1987. After investigation the police filed the charge sheet on the aforesaid facts.

5. After trial, on due appreciation of the evidence Trial Court acquitted all the eleven accused. On appeal High Court reversed the finding regarding 1st and 2nd accused and held that they were punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Regarding other accused High Court confirmed the finding of Trial Court. This appeal is by the two-convicted accused.

6. The Trial Court noticed that there were many weak spots in the prosecution case such as, the delay in lodging First Information Statement. The spot of incident is only 100 meters from the Police Station. But the FIR was lodged in the Police Station only at 7.40 AM on the next day; that though FIR was filed on 29-12-1987 in that morning, it was sent to the Magistrate only at 5.40 PM on 30-12-1987; that the Sub-Inspector (PW-28) did not register the crime on the basis of information collected by him immediately after the incident; that Ex.P 30 is the counter foil file of the FIR and between the entries relating to Crime Nos. 5 and 7, certain blank sheets were found; that this circumstance was not satisfactorily explained by the concerned Police Officer during examination. The Trial Court is of the view that this was done to fill up details regarding the instant case subsequently; that Ex.P 1 First Information Statement given by PW1 also seemed to have been subsequently written on a blank signed paper; that this inference was drawn due to the cramped handwriting in the paper towards the end portion, just above the signature though there was adequate space in the next page.

7. Based on these factors the FIR was found to be a concocted document and delay in lodging the FIR with the Magistrate also influenced the Trial Court in holding that in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 194

IMPORTANT POINTWhen the trial Court had given good and weighty reasons for recording its conclusion on acquittal of accused, the High Court need not have substituted its view to reverse the view of trial Court.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
When the trial Court had given good and weighty reasons for recording its conclusion on acquittal of accused, the High Court need not have substituted its view to reverse the view of trial Court.