The High Court has the same powers as the Sessions Judge in an appeal from an acquittal. The High Court can consider the evidence and weigh the probabilities. It can accept evidence rejected by the Sessions Judge and reject evidence accepted by him unless the Sessions Judge relied upon his observations of the demeanour of a particular witness.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CONVICTION - REVERSAL OF ACQUITTAL - POWERS OF HIGH COURT - SCOPE - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CONTRADICTION WITH ORAL TESTIMONY - INFERENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY - EYE-WITNESSES - CREDIBILITY - RELATIONSHIP WITH VICTIM - COLLATERAL CIRCUMSTANCES - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted by the High Court of Allahabad for the murder of one Harpal and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, after reversing their acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. The case of the prosecution was that a fortnight later on the morning of November 26, 1961 at about 7 A.M. Harpal left his ghair (compound) to answer a call of nature. Near the gate of his house the appellants and the two accused (since acquitted) fell upon him. Sher Singh and Vijaipal had spears and Shanker and Baljor had lathis. They beat Harpal with their weapons. Tarif, who also had a stick, took no part in the beating but exhorted the others to kill Harpal was pierced in the chest and abdomen with spears and struck with sticks. On his shout for help his brothers Nahar Singh and Amichand, who were working in the back portion of their house came running and three or four witnesses Bhupal (P. W. 2), Tara (P.W. 3), katara (P. W. 4), and one Atar Singh (who was not examined) came from different sides. The assailants then fled. Harpal who had fallen down was lifted, placed on a cot and covered with a quilt. He was however dead. The autopsy later disclosed two penetrating wounds in his chest each of which had torn through his heart, a penetrating wound transfixing the stomach and some contusions. He must have died in a matter of minutes. The five accused were tried for his murder but were acquitted. On appeal the three appellants were convicted and sentenced.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court reassessed the evidence and considered the grounds for its rejection by the Sessions Judge. The court found that the medical evidence did not contradict the oral testimony, that the evidence clearly showed that the attack must have taken place at the gate of the house, and that the eye-witnesses were not interested in the victim or hostile to the accused. The court also found that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was consistent, convincing, and credible.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal of the appellants by the Sessions Judge? 2. Whether the medical evidence contradicted the oral testimony? 3. Whether the evidence clearly showed that the attack must have taken place elsewhere? 4. Whether the eye-witnesses were interested in the victim or hostile to the accused? 5. Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was consistent, convincing, and credible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has the same powers as the Sessions Judge in an appeal from an acquittal. The High Court can consider the evidence and weigh the probabilities. It can accept evidence rejected by the Sessions Judge and reject evidence accepted by him unless the Sessions Judge relied upon his observations of the demeanour of a particular witness. 2. The medical evidence did not contradict the oral testimony. The injuries were such as could be inflicted at the gate of the house or elsewhere and no inference against the testimony of the eye-witnesses can be drawn. 3. The evidence clearly showed that the attack must have taken place at the gate of the house. 4. The eye-witnesses were not interested in the victim or hostile to the accused. 5. The evidence of the eye-witnesses was consistent, convincing, and credible.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The three appellants have been convicted by the High Court of Allahabad under S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Harpal and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, after reversing their acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. Originally five persons were tried for this offence. All of them were acquitted by the Sessions Court. On appeal, the acquittal of the other two (Shanker and Tarif ) was maintained but the three appellants (Sher Singh, Baljor and Vijaipal) were convicted. They now appeal by special leave granted by this Court.

2. The appellants are brothers and sons of Narayan Singh. Tarif and Shanker are brothers of Narayan Singh. The deceased Harpal was the brother of Nahar Singh (P. W. 1) and Amichand (P. W. 5). The house of Amichand and his brothers is in front of that of the appellants, in Mauza Amanullahpur, police Station Jani, District Meerut, where the offence was committed.

3. As frequently happens this murder was the result of a petty quarrel earlier over the taking of carts through fields. It is hardly necessary to recount in detail what had then happened. Suffice it to say that Sher Singh took his cart through Harpal s field and there was a wordy quarrel. Next Sher Singh stopped a cart in which Harpal was carrying sugarcane and Harpal kicked Sher Singh and beat him with fist blows. Nahar Singh (P. W. 1) and Khazan (P. W. 7) separated them, The murder followed close upon the heels of the second incident.

4. The case of the prosecution is that a fortnight later on the morning of November 26, 1961 at about 7 A.M. Harpal left his ghair (compound) to answer a call of nature. Near the gate of his house the appellants and the two accused (since acquitted) fell upon him. Sher Singh and Vijaipal had spears and Shanker and Baljor had lathis. They beat Harpal with their weapons. Tarif, who also had a stick, took no part in the beating but exhorted the others to kill Harpal was pierced in the chest and abdomen with spears and struck with sticks. On his shout for help his brothers Nahar Singh and Amichand, who were working in the back portion of their house came running and three or four witnesses Bhupal (P. W. 2), Tara (P.W. 3), katara (P. W. 4), and one Atar Singh (who was not examined) came from different sides. The assailants then fled. Harpal who had fallen down was lifted, placed on a cot and covered with a quilt. He was however dead. The autopsy later disclosed two penetrating wounds in his chest each of which had torn through his heart, a penetrating wound transfixing the stomach and some contusions. He must have died in a matter of minutes. The five accused were tried for his murder but were acquitted. On appeal the three appellants were convicted and sentenced.

5. The learned Sessions Judge in a long judgment exhaustively discussed the evidence but lost himself in the details of family relationship and other irrelevant matters sedulously brought out in a desultory cross-examination. He found it difficult to accept any part of the testimony of the eye-witnesses. The High Court on a reappraisal of the evidence came to a contrary conclusion although it maintained the acquittal of Shanker and Tarif by giving them the benefit of the doubt. In this appeal Mr. Chari, learned counsel for the appellants, drew our attention to the evidence of the eye-witnesses and contended that their testimony was unsatisfactory He submitted that this was not a fit case for the reversal of an acquittal regard being had to the observations of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1961) 3 SCR 120 since an acquittal "reinforces" the presumption. of innocence. We shall deal with both the aspects of his argument.

6. It has been pointed out before by this Court as also the Judicial Committee that the powers of the High Court in an appeal from an acquittal are in no way different from those in an appea1 from a conviction. The High Court can consider the evidence and weigh the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1967 Supreme(SC) 50

Cases Referred (1)