IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate Court while sitting as a Court of appeal should not substitute the finding of trial Court merely because another view is possible to be taken on same set of facts.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Thirty-five accused including the appellant herein were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 149 and 304 IPC for having committed the murder of one Krishnaiah on 28.7.1988 at about 7 a.m. near the Ram Mandir (Temple) at Palachuru village. The learned Sessions Judge, Nellore Division, Nellore, by his judgment dated 18.5.1999 acquitted all the accused persons of the charges framed against them holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case. In appeal the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that A-1 (since deceased) and A-2 (the appellant herein) were responsible for causing the death of deceased. The High Court also held that A-3 was responsible for causing injuries to PW-1. Since by then A-1 had died, the proceedings against him had abated, therefore, the High Court convicted A-2 for an offence punishable under Section 302 simpliciter and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life while A-3 was convicted by the High Court for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, the said A-3 has not challenged his conviction and sentence, so the present appeal before us is confined to A-2 only.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :

It is stated that there were two sub-castes of Harijans residing in Palachuru village, who had certain disputes inter se between them. One such group consisting of 35 accused was led by A1 allegedly attacked the deceased on 28.7.1988 at about 7 a.m. near the Ram Mandir in the said village. In the said attack, the deceased Krishnaiah was seriously injured while PW-1 was also injured. The incident in question was noticed by PWs 1, 3, 4 and 7. While PWs 5, 6 and 11 allegedly arrived at the scene soon after the attack. The information in regard to this attack was received by the Mandal Revenue Officer, PW-14 who conveyed the said information to PW-21, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palachuru, who immediately visited the scene of the incident and shifted the injured to the hospital at Gudur. In view of the fact that the deceased was seriously injured he was shifted to Madras Medical College Hospital at Madras. PW-1 also arranged to record the statement of the said deceased in the hospital which is marked as Ex. P-21. It is stated that said Krishnaiah died on 3.8.1988, hence, Ext. P-21 was treated as a dying declaration. After completion of investigation, PW-21 filed a charge sheet against 35 accused persons including the appellant herein. The trial court, as stated above, acquitted all the accused persons but on appeal preferred by the State the High Court has convicted the appellant herein for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. Ms. K. Sarda Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the High Court seriously erred in reversing the well-considered judgment of acquittal of the trial court. She submitted that from a perusal of the judgment of the High Court it can be seen that the High Court has not properly discussed the findings of the learned Sessions Judge nor has it given any acceptable reason for disagreeing with the findings of the trial court. She also contended that a perusal of the evidence of eye-witnesses clearly shows that the said evidence cannot be relied on for basing a conviction as held by the trial Court.

4. Ms. T. Anamika, learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh supported the judgment of the High Court by contending that the evidence led by the prosecution was consistent, and PW 1 being an injured eye-witness, his evidence cannot be discarded. She also submitted that the evidence of PW 1 is fully corroborated by the other evidence led by the prosecution, hence, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the well considered judgment of the High Court.

5. It is a well-settled principle in law that though the first appellate court like the High Court in this case sits as a c