IMPORTANT POINT
If on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial Court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellate Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 378 and 379 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 300 - Appeal against acquittal by trial court- The High Court reversed the order of acquittal- Not proper- The trial Court noticed that in the First Information Report made by PW-2, there was no mention about any conspiracy to commit the offence, though there was a bald statement at the end of the report- The trial Court was justified in adversely commenting on the deposition of PW-2, because no such story had been disclosed in the First Information Report- The High Court also failed to consider the defense-The appellants rightly contended that the occurrence had taken place in a different manner altogether, and a false case was sought to be concocted by the prosecution, and Order of the High Court set aside [Paras 23 to28, 35, 36 and 37]

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 impugning the judgment and order of the High Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 302-dba of 1993 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No.92 of 1992.

2. The High Court has found Hem Raj, A-1, guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC while Gian Chand, A-2 and Baldev Raj, A-3 have been found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. All of them have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. All the appellants have been found guilty of the offence under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC for which they have been sentenced to six months and one year imprisonments respectively. All the accused were also charged of the offence under Section 120 B IPC and have been acquitted of that charge both by the trial court as well as by the High Court. Apart from the three appellants, who have been convicted by the High Court, the acquittal of Hans Raj, A-4 was affirmed by the High Court. Hem Raj, A-1 and Gian Chand, A-2 are the appellants in this appeal. Baldev Raj, A-3, though convicted, has not preferred an appeal.

3. It is not in dispute, that Hem Raj, A-1, Baldev Raj, A-3 and Hans Raj, A-4 are brothers. Gian Chand, A-2, is their brother-in-law being the husband of their sister. In the occurrence giving rise to this appeal one Rajesh @ Toni is alleged to have been killed by the appellants while PW-2, Parshotam Lal and PW-3, Bikram @ Vicky are said to have sustained injuries.

4. Similarly the members of the prosecution party are also inter related. Toni, the deceased, was the son of Ram Lal. PW-2, the informant is the son of the brother of Ram Lal, and Rajinder is his brother. PW-3 the other eye witness is the cousin of PW-2, being the son of his mother s sister. Ram Lal, though an injured eye witness, and Rajinder another eye witness have not been examined as witnesses.

5. The case of the prosecution is that at about 9.00 p.m. on May 1, 1989, Parshotam Lal, PW-2, Bikram @ Vicky, PW-3, Rajesh @ Toni, deceased, Ram Lal @ Nikku Ram, father of Rajesh @ Toni and Rajinder were standing in front of the shop known as Bobby Cassettes located in Nali Mohalla Ludhiana. Hem Raj, A-1, armed with a knife, Baldev Raj, A-3, armed with a kirpan and Gian Chand, A-2, armed with a hockey stick appeared on the scene and they attacked Rajesh @ Toni, deceased. While Gian Chand, A-2 and Baldev Rai, A-3 caught hold of Toni, Hem Raj, A-1, stabbed Toni in his abdomen with his knife. Gian Chand, A-2, assaulted him on his face with his hockey stick while Baldev Raj, A-3, caused an injury on his right hand with his sword. Toni slumped on the road whereafter his father Ram Lal and Rajinder Kumar (both not examined) rushed him to C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. The case of the prosecution is that after the occurrence, the accused smashed the doors and windows of several houses in the vicinity.

6. The motive for the offence was that during diwali the accused used to indulge in gambling which was opposed by the deceased Toni. That is why, they assaulted him in the manner alleged. It was also the case of prosecution that Hem Raj, A-1, was really behind this murder.

7. The further case of the prosecution is that soon after the occurrence Bikram @ Vicky rushed to Officer Incharge of the Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana, namely, Sub Inspector Tek Singh, PW-6, who was then present in front of Society Cinema on routine patrolling duty. He informed him about the assault on Toni and informed him about Toni having been taken to C.M.C. Hospital. When the police party reached the hospital, it found that deceased Toni was lying dead.

8. The case of the prosecution is that PW-6, Tek Singh, recorded the statement of PW-2, Parshotam Lal, in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 869

IMPORTANT POINTIf on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial Court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellate Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal.

IMPORTANT POINT
If on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial Court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellate Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal.