IMPORTANT POINT
Paramount consideration of Court in hearing appeal against acquittal is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/149, 149 and 395-Dacoity with murder-Respondent accused were convicted by trial Court High Court set aside conviction holding evidence of eye witness PW 1 could not be relied upon when other two eye witnesses PW 2 and 4 near relations of deceased, had turned hostile and that there was doubt about presence of gaslight as source of light which had not been shown in site plan-State appeal-Approach of High Court was casual-Merely because gaslight was not mentioned in sketch could not be a suspicious circumstance-Evidence of eye witnesses PW 1 and PW 3 supporting charge could not be discarded only because other witnesses, widow and daughter of deceased had turned hostile-High Court did not discuss evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 to point out any vulnerability-High Court having acted on surmises and conjectures, its judgment was indefensible. (Paras 5 to 8)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 136-State appeal against acquittal-No embargo on appellate court reviewing the evidence-Paramount consideration would be to ensure that mis-carriage of justice was prevented.
       Held : There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence even where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (JT 2002 (3) SC 387)]. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793), Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (9) SCC 225) and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (JT 2000 (4) SC 114). (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-The four respondents were accused of having caused homicidal death of Munshi Lal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ), committing dacoity and attempting to commit murder of Ramai (PW-1). Though the IV Additional Sessions Judge found them guilty of several offences and convicted and sentenced them, the High Court found them innocent by the impugned judgment and directed their acquittal.

2. Factual scenario according to the prosecution is as follows:-

Around mid-night of 9.5.1978, dacoity was committed in the house of P.W.1, during which deceased was murdered. Along with accused persons, several others numbering 8-9 had forced into the house of Ramai. Accused Suraj Pal belongs to the same village as that of the deceased and PW1. The others belong to the neighbouring village i.e. Gangupura. Four of them were identified by Ramai and other witnesses at the spot itself. Though dacoity was committed, the primary object was to commit murder of the deceased since he had once objected the marriage of Tarawati, the sister of accused- Suraj Pal with accused-Babu and this had caused bad blood between the two. Accused-Babu had even lodged the First Information Report against deceased charging him with theft soon after his marriage with Tarawati which took place despite opposition by the deceased. Accused-Babu and Lala Ram inflicted injuries with their respective firearms on the deceased and accused-Babu stabbed the deceased as a result of which injuries were sustained by him. The informant was sleeping near the main gate of the house and was awakened by cries of the deceased and entered the house. Accused-Suraj Pal shot at Ramai with the intention of causing his death. This resulted in gunshot wounds to Ramai who was also beaten by other victims. Thereafter they decamped with certain properties. Written report (Ex. Ka.1) was lodged by Ramai regarding the occurrence, at 9.35 a.m. on 10.5.1978. He was sent to the Public Health Center for medical examination and the investigating officer reached the village. He found the dead body of the deceased and sent it for post-mortem examination which was conducted at 3.00 p.m. on 11.5.1978.

3. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was placed and accused persons were sent for trial. They pleaded innocence, and false implication. To further the prosecution version 9 witnesses were examined. Apart from PW1 who claimed to be eyewitness, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW8 and PW9 also claimed to be eyewitnesses. But PWs 2, 4, 8 and 9 resiled from their statement during investigation while deposing in court. The Trial Court found the accused-Babu, Suraj Pal and Lala Ram guilty for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149, 148, Section 323 read with Section 149, and Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ). Accused-Natthu was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, 147, Section 323 read with Section 149 and Section 395 IPC. Accused-Suraj was acquitted of charge relating to the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC but no custodial sentence was imposed for the rest of the offences. The accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed acquittal. The primary reason for doing so was that the evidence of Ramai (PW1) could not be relied upon. Widow and daughter of the deceased had not supported the prosecution case. Additionally, it was observed that there was no material to show as to how the prosecution witness could identify the accused persons, as there was great doubt about the source of light. High Court noticed that in the site plan, the place where the gaslight was found had not been indicated though same was stated by prosecution to be the source of light.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 952

IMPORTANT POINTParamount consideration of Court in hearing appeal against acquittal is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Paramount consideration of Court in hearing appeal against acquittal is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.