IMPORTANT POINT
When reasoning of the High Court is perverse, the Supreme Court may set aside the judgment of acquittal and restore the judgment of conviction and sentence upon the accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Acquittal by High Court-Appeal against-Three respondents were charged for commission of offence u/s 302/34 IPC-Respondents together with one accused absconding came to house of deceased about 2.00 a.m. in the night-There were five inmates in the house-Deceased was sleeping on a cot-A lantern was burning-Accused persons were armed with pistols and lathis-Parties were said to be in inimical terms-One of the respondent was an accused in a case in which deceased was a witness-Accused pressurising deceased not to depose against him-Hearing conversation, other inmates of the house awoke-Accused fired pistol shots killing deceased-Eye witnesses being inmates of the house-Sessions Judge convicted accused placing reliance upon the eye witnesses, medical evidence as also existence of motive on part of respondents to commit the crime-High Court acquitted accused coming to the conclusion that it was a case of hit and run during night hours and actual incidence was not witnessed by any-High Court held that the deceased suffered only one gun shot injury-Whether findings recorded by High Court acquitting accused not substantiated by reasons, sustainable-(No).
       Held : The Trial Court upon critical examination of the evidence of the eye witnesses had rightly concluded that they were truthful witnesses and the respondents together with Ram Prakash (absconding) and Nawab (since deceased) were present at the time of occurrence. Merely because the witnesses happened to be the relatives of deceased by itself cannot be a ground to reject their testimonies. In view of the fact that the occurrence took place at the dead of night they were natural witnesses and were supposed to be present at the place of occurrence. The reasoning of the High Court to the effect that there was no reason for the accused to raise an alarm to say the least, is incomprehensible inasmuch as had the deceased, upon being threatened, stated that he would not depose against Ram Prakash and Natthu in the case of murder of Kedar, he might have been spared. The High Court failed to notice that even similar threat was given to Het Ram which should have been considered as a part of the same transaction. Furthermore, if the eye witnesses are trustworthy, the motive attributed for commission of crime may not be of much relevance. In this case, however, the motive for commission of the crime stands proved. We are satisfied that by reason of the judgment of the High Court, a great miscarriage of justice has taken place. We therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment the High Court cannot be sustained. (Paras 28 & 29)
       It is not a case where two reasonable views are possible. It is also not a case where findings recorded by the High Court are fully supported by the evidences on record. The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded absolutely on a wrong premise that there had been only one fire injury which is contrary to records. (Para 31)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-A judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is in question in this appeal at the instance of the State of U.P.

2. The three respondents herein were charged for commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of one Sri Ram on 10/11.6.1978 at about 2.00 a.m.

Background Fact :

3. The prosecution case, as appearing from the First Information Report, is that the respondents together with one Ram Prakash (who is absconding) came to the house of deceased about 2.00 a.m. in the night. The house of the deceased was a small one with a very small courtyard. At the time of occurrence, there were five inmates in the house. Amrit Lal then aged about 12 years, son of the deceased and the first informant Ram Ratan aged 20 years, brother-in-law of the deceased were sleeping on one cot. Km. Kanth Shri, the unmarried sister of the deceased was sleeping on another cot. Renuka Devi, wife of the deceased together with her 15 day s old baby was sleeping on the third cot in the open courtyard of the house. The deceased was sleeping on another cot in the courtyard under a shed (chhappar) near the doors of the room and the kitchen. The house of Sri Ram had no shutter opening on the side of the lane. An opening in the wall existed for coming out of the house in the lane. As Renuka Devi gave birth to a child only a few days back, a lantern was burning.

4. The accused persons at 2.00 a.m. on 10.6.1978 trespassed into the house. Ram Prakash and Natthu were said to have been armed with pistols whereas Nawab and Peshkar were said to have been armed with lathis. The parties were said to be in inimical terms.

5. It is contended that the accused persons were history sheeters. They were involved in two murder cases. The deceased Sri Ram was a witness in one of them. He had constantly been pressurized not to depose in that case by the accused persons. Ram Prakash together with the other accused persons upon entering the courtyard of the house gave a threat to the deceased that he would be killed if he deposed in the case of murder of Kedar. The deceased is said to be awaken at that time and allegedly replied that he would make the same statement in the court which he had made before the investigating officer. Hearing the conversation, the other inmates of the house awoke. Ram Prakash is said to have fired his pistol at Sri Ram causing an abrasion on the left side back middle whereafter respondent No.2 Natthu fired a pistol shot at Sri Ram which hit the deceased on the left side of the abdomen 21 cm. below the left nipple. As a result of the injuries suffered thereby Sri Ram is said to have died. Renuka Devi and Ram Ratan cried out for help whereupon they were also threatened. The entire incident took about 2-3 minutes whereafter the accused persons left the place of occurrence. The accused persons are said to have thereafter gone near the tubewell of the Het Ram Pradhan where he and his brothers Har Nagar and Pati Ram were sleeping on the roof of the kothri of the tubewell where an electric bulb of 250 watt was burning. Hearing the sound of firing, the said persons were also said to have been seen by them. It is alleged that Ram Prakash and Natthu shouted at Pradhan Het Ram stating that they had killed Sri Ram and if he dared to depose in the case of murder of Kedar, he would also be put to death in the same manner. Fearing assault at the hands of the accused and as they, being not armed, did not come down from the rooftop. At about 5.00 a.m., however, they are said to have gone near the village abadi which is situated at about one and a half furlongs. They came to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Sri Ram lying on the cot under the Chhapper. Ram Ratan prepared a written report which was written by one Har Nagar Singh whereafter the duo left the village on bicycle at 5.30 a.m. The police station is said to be at a distance of 2 and 1/2 miles from the v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 129

IMPORTANT POINTWhen reasoning of the High Court is perverse, the Supreme Court may set aside the judgment of acquittal and restore the judgment of conviction and sentence upon the accused.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
When reasoning of the High Court is perverse, the Supreme Court may set aside the judgment of acquittal and restore the judgment of conviction and sentence upon the accused.