IMPORTANT POINT
When reasons recorded by High Court in its acquittal judgment are flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence, it would be liable to be set aside.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Respondents/accused A1 and A2 fired shots at deceased when deceased was going towards his field and PW 1 was following him 15-20 steps behind-PW 2 and PW 3 arrived on spot immediately after incident-Trial Court convicted appellants for offence of murder and third accused u/s 302 r/w 114 IPC-High Court set aside conviction in appeal-Appeal by State and by de facto complainant-Reasons given by High Court to reverse conviction were flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence-Witnesses could not be disbelieved merely that they were related to deceased-House of witnesses were nearby the place of occurrence-No blood stains were found on clothes of witnesses though they lifted deceased from spot also was not a reason to disbelieve them-Absence of name of accused in inquest report also could not be a ground to acquit accused-Fire-arms were recovered from accused and an empty khokha" was recovered from place of incident-No satisfactory evidence against A 3 that he made exhortation and his conviction was liable to be set aside-Conviction of other two appellants was liable to be upheld. (Paras 7 to 12)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-Both these appeals arise from the common Judgment passed by the High Court of Rajasthan on 24.9.1996 in D.B. Criminal No. 353 of 1990, whereby the acquittal of three accused persons was confirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 1997 is filed by the de-facto complainant and the Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1997 is by the State.

2. The respondents Raja Ram, Hari Padam and Pappu @ Raj Kumar were charged under Section 302 read with Section 114 I.P.C. and Sections 25 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The case against these respondents is that they caused the death of one Mota Ram son of Dana Ram at about 5.30 p.m. on 3.1.1985. PW 1 Hem Raj, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 1997 preferred the First Information statement before the Police on 3.1.1985 itself at about 9.00 p.m. In the F.I. Statement, he stated that he alongwith deceased Mota Ram was proceeding to their field and Mota Ram was walking about 15-20 steps ahead of him. The accused respondents suddenly emerged from the neighbouring field and accused Hari Padam shouted that enemy had come and that he had to be finished. Thereupon Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar took out their pistols and fired at Mota Ram. On receiving the bullet injuries, Mota Ram fell on the ground. Immediately, Gangajal, brother of Mota Ram and one Hans Raj came there and all of them took the injured Mota Ram in a jeep to the hospital at Sri Ganganagar where Mota Ram was examined by a doctor who declared him dead. PW 1 then came to the Ghamudwali Police Station where he filed the F.I. Statement.

3. The police took up the investigation and held inquest over the dead body. Two shoes were recovered from the place of occurrence. Blood smeared soil was collected and an empty "khokha" was recovered from the place of incident. The accused Raja Ram was arrested on 13.1.1985 and at his instance, a pistol was recovered. Pappu @ Raj Kumar was arrested on 14.1.1985 and another pistol was recovered from him. Both the pistols along with the empty "khokha" were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and Exh. 21 was submitted by the expert.

4. PW 4 conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Mota Ram. The deceased Mota Ram had sustained four lacerated injuries and there were injuries to so many internal organs. The ribs were broken, the left side diaphragm was punctured, the peretonium above the liver was lacerated and the liver was punctured. The Doctor opined that the death of the deceased Mota Ram occurred due to the injuries caused by firearms on the liver and stomach.

5. The learned Sessions Judge after elaborately considering the evidences on record held that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused and convicted Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Hari Padam was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 114 I.P.C. No separate conviction and sentence was entered against the respondents by the Sessions Court for the offences under the Arms Act. The Sessions Court relied on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3, recovery of the pistols at the instance of the accused persons and the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Sessions Court was of the opinion that prosecution had clearly proved that the accused were responsible for causing the death of Mota Ram.

6. The above finding of the Sessions Court was reversed by the High Court for the reasons recorded by the High Court in its judgment.

7. We have carefully considered the Judgment of the High Court and in our view the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction and sentence are flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence. The High Court was of the opinion that these three eyewitnesses were related to the deceased, and as there was enmity between the accused persons and the deceased Mota Ram, had these witnesses been present at the place of occurrence, the accused would have killed them al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 82

IMPORTANT POINTWhen reasons recorded by High Court in its acquittal judgment are flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence, it would be liable to be set aside.

IMPORTANT POINT
When reasons recorded by High Court in its acquittal judgment are flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence, it would be liable to be set aside.