Judgement

CHANDRACHUD, J.:- Eighteen persons were put up for trial before the First Additional Session Judge, Durg (M. P.) for offences arising out of the murder of two persons Jagdeo and Padum. The learned Judge acquitted them of all the charges but that order was partly set aside by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which confirmed the acquittal of eight persons and convicted the remaining ten under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court under which a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed of the appellants.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the afternoon of May 9, 1966, a group of about 18 persons including the appellants dragged Jagdeo and Padum from their houses and attacked them with lathis, spears and axes. In 1965 Jugdeo and Padum were prosecuted along with 2 others for committing the murder of one Daulatram, the Sarpanch of the village. That case ended in acquittal and it is alleged that Judgeo and Padum were done to death by the appellants who felt especially aggrieved by the murder of the Sarpanch.

3. Since the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court it is of primary importance to appreciate and understand the approach of the Sessions Court to the evidence in the case and its conclusions thereon. These briefly are the structural halmarks of the Sessions Court s judgment: (1) In rioting cases discrepancies are bound to occur in the evidence but the duty of the court is to have regard to the broad probabilities of the case; (2) In a factious village independent witnesses are unwilling to come forward and therefore the testimony of eyewitnesses who are interested in the deceased cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they are so interested provided of course the presence of the witnesses is proved; (3) The First Information Report does not constitute substantive evidence in the case and the mere circumstance that there are certain omission in it will not justify the case being disbelieved.

4. Applying these broad principles the Sessions Court rejected the evidence of the eye-witnesses and acquitted the accused. In doing this the court was influenced by these circumstances: (1) There were material discrepancies as regards the place where Jagdeo was assaulted. The police had taken scratchings from the walls of Jagdeo s house but did not send them to the Chemical Analyser for ascertaining whether they bore stains of blood; (2) The widows of Jagdeo and Padum had stated that the two men were attacked with spears and axes but according to the medical evidence there were neither incised nor punctured wounds on the dead bodies; (3) As many as three different Reports were given to the police station on the morning of the day following the day of the incident but the names of the appellants were not mentioned in any one of them; (4) In one of those Reports the incident was stated to have happened at night whereas the case of the prosecution is that the incident happened in broad daylight at about 1 p.m., and (5) There was no reliable evidence showing that the accused had sufficient motive to commit the murder.

5. These, in our opinion, are weighty reasons on the strength of which the learned Sessions Judge was reasonably entitled to come to the conclusion that the charge against the accused was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. At worst, it may perhaps be possible to say that two views of the evidence were reasonably possible. It is well established that in such circumstances the high Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal.

6. We will demonstrate in reference to few important circumstances as to why the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 1 p.m. on May 9, 1966 but it was not until the next morning that any one in the village thought it necessary to report the incident to th