IMPORTANT POINT
In a criminal case if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to innocence of accused should be adopted.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/149, 147, 148, 201, 307, 323, 326, 341, 397 r/w 120B and 109 -39 persons were prosecuted for murder of two persons-Trial Court convicted three of them u/s 302 IPC, a few others u/s 324 IPC and some u/s 341 IPC-High Court set aside conviction of all-Appeal by father of deceased-Though mere acquittal of large number of co-accused does not per se entitle others to acquittal, Court has a duty to separate grain from chaff-High Court rightly disbelieved PW1 an eye witness who did not get medically examined though injured in incident-PW4, father of deceased did not lodge report though there was police post in front of his house and there was delay of about 7 hours in lodging report-In absence of any plausible explanation for delay, it was suspicious circumstance making prosecution version vulnerable-Contradiction between version of eye witnesses as regards assailants of deceased No.2-Several other factors throwing doubt on prosecution story-High Court could not be said to have taken a view not possible-No interference was called for. (Para 13)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 378-Appeal against judgment of acquittal-Generally acquittal shall not be interfered with-Paramount consideration of Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is 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 where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2) Supreme 567). 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 and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3088-90/97.

2. These six appeals are interlinked and relate to a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted. Criminal Appeal Nos. 232-234/1997 is by Gorle Suryanarayana Naidu (PW-4), the father of the Kurmi Naidu who along with Meesala Jogulu (both of them hereinafter referred to as deceased No.1 and deceased No. 2 by their respective names) lost lives on 10.4.1991 purportedly on the basis of assaults made by respondents-accused persons.

3. In all 39 persons faced trial on the accusations of being responsible for the death of aforesaid two persons. It is to be noted that the trial Court acquitted Gorle Ramarao (A-5), Gorle Laxmanarao (A-6), Gorle Satyam (A-12), Meesala Narayanarao (A-14), Gorle Asirinaidu Kasavayya (A-15), Relli Ramachandra (A-19), Gorle Ramaswamy, Gorle Chinnarao, Gorle Ramamurthy O Dihbabu, Gorle Satyam, Gorle Surappalanaidu, Gorle Papinaidus, Gorle Haribabu, Gorle Venunaidu (A-23 to A-30 respectively), Datti Appayya (A-32), Gorle Sreeramulu, Relli Sanyasapudu, Gorle Sanasappadu, Pisini Satyam, Gorle Bodinaidu, Buri Papudu (A-34 to A-39 respectively). Gorle Raminaidu (A-16) and Potnuru Raminaidu (A-22) were convicted for offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short the IPC ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Meesala Chandramouli (A-3), Gorle Ramaswamy (A-4), Gorle Harinarayana (A-7), Muntha Prasadarao (A-9), Pyla Venkatasuri (A-10), Gorle Sanyasappadu (A-11), Gorle Ramakrishna (A-13), Gorle Raminaidu (A-16), Muntha Banoji (A-17), Relli Paoinaidu (A-18), Muntha Pardhasaradh (A-20), Gorle Ramana (A-21) and Potnuru Raminaidu (A-22) were convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. Gorle Asirinaidu (A-1), Gorle Vasudevarao (A-2) and Gorle Mohanarao (A-8) were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The sentences of imprisonment imposed on A-16 and A-22 were directed to run concurrently.

4. Three appeals were filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, two by the convicted accused persons, and one by the State against acquittal of the accused persons as noted above.

5. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

6. The deceased persons Kurmi Naidu and Meesala Jogulu were residents of Patharlapalle village. The deceased Kurmi Naidu was the second son of the first wife of Gorle Suryanarayana Naidu (PW-4). Kurmi Naidu was a student of Bachelor of Engineering at the relevant time. There was a fire accident in their village i.e. Patharlapalle wherein more than four hundred houses were burnt. The Government and the insurance company sanctioned Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively to owner of each of the houses which was burnt. A group of persons headed by Hari Babu (A-29) started saying that they had got sanctioned the amount and asked the recipients to pay Rs. 100/- each. The persons, who did not pay the amount so demanded came and complained to PW-4. On that score a group rivalry started. One group was headed by A-29 and the other group by PW-4. In the year 1989, G. Ramarao (A-5) started Indira Priyadarsini Yuvajana Sangam . The said Sangam started collecting Rs. 50/- from each of the members. Whenever any village refused to join the Sangam, the members of that Sangam used to damage their agricultural implements like carts etc., and also the crops. The said Sangam entertained a grouse against PW-4 thinking that he was causing obstruction to their activities. About one year prior to the death of the deceased (on 10.4.1991) all the accused and some others attacked the house of PW-4 by hurling bombs. As there was no safety in the village, and threat to his life, PW-4 started living in the house which is situated i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1272

IMPORTANT POINTIn a criminal case if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to innocence of accused should be adopted.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
In a criminal case if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to innocence of accused should be adopted.