The High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere with an acquittal order passed by a subordinate court, but such interference should be based on the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and should be limited to exceptional cases.

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : (On behalf of himself and Mudholkar, J.)

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Punjab at Chandigarh setting aside that of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, acquitting the 5 appellants of the charges under S. 148 and Ss. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting them under the said sections and sentencing each of them to rigorous imprisonment for life and one year respectively.

2. The prosecution case May be briefly stated : On December 23, 1959, the 5 appellants formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of their common object caused the death of Gurdit Singh and his son Pal Singh. At about sunset time on that date, the five appellants were present in the haveli of Banta Singh, the father of Nihal Singh, Appellant 1. When Tara Singh was proceeding towards his house, the five appellants, armed with deadly weapons, came out of the haveli and chased him for the purpose of assaulting him. At that time Ranjit Singh, who was watering his cattle at a nearby well, asked them not to beat Tara Singh. Tara Singh also raised an alarm when he was being pursued by the appellants. Gurdit Singh, father of Ranjit Singh, Gurdit Singh s another son Pal Singh and Pal Singh s son Balbir Singh also came out of their house on hearing the alarm raised by Tara Singh. Pal Singh was carrying a takwa in his hand. Gurdit Singh and Pal Singh asked the assailants not to beat Tara Singh. Dalip Singh, Appellant 3, caught hold of Pal Singh from behind and Nihal Singh, Appellant 1, aimed a dang blow at Pal Singh s head. Pal Singh used his takwa in self defence against Darshan Singh, Appellant 4, whereupon Harbans singh, Appellant 5, gave a blow with his takwa to Pal Singh and the latter fell down. Thereafter, Darshan Singh and Pritam Singh, Appellant 2, belaboured Pal Singh with their takwas when the latter was lying on the ground. The takwa in the hand of Pal Singh fell down from his hand and thereupon his father, Gurdit Singh, seized the same and attempted to use it against the appellants; Pritam Singh gave a dang blow to Gurdit Singh on his head. Harbans Singh and Darshan Singh also did likewise. Gurdit Singh died on the spot and Pal Singh, a little time thereafter. The appellants were committed to the Sessions to meet the aforesaid charges.

3. The appellants pleaded "not guilty" to the charges and stated that they were all implicated because of enmity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all manner of doubt against any of the accused and, on that finding, acquitted all of them. On appeal, the High Court, on a review of the entire Evidence, came to a different conclusion : it held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was completely wrong in discrediting the prosecution witnesses and, on that finding, it convicted appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence the appeal.

4. This Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1961) 3 SCR 120 at p. 129 laid down the following principles governing the mode of disposing of an appeal against an order of acquittal made by a subordinate Court :

"The foregoing discussion yields the following results : (1) an appellate Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, 61 Ind App 398 : (AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)) afford a correct guide for the appellate Court s approach to a case in disposing of such of an appeal and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) "substantial and compelling reasons", (ii) "good and sufficiently cogent reasons", and (iii) "strong reasons" are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should