Headnote:
SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. 1970 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 134 (1) (c) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - on 307 – Appeal Against Conviction - Guilty – Offence of murder – Cognizance - Stabbing of aged about years and sentenced him to life imprisonment - He convicted appellant under Section 324 I. P. C. Only for the injury inflicted on and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment, but acquitted him of other charges - He also acquitted the accused Ramesh and of all charges leveled against them - Appealed against his conviction under Section 302 simpliciter but this appeal was dismissed by the High Court which maintained his life imprisonment - High Court also allowed States appeal against the acquittal for injuries caused to and convicting And in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for two months - It upheld the acquittal of all charges - Held, Site plans did not show even where kitchen was - Therefore Court cannot know by looking at these whether three ladies who are alleged to be eye witnesses at trial could have seen - Occurrence in room m which was injured as well as at door of kitchen - Taking all relevant evidence on this point into account is far more likely that as Sessions Judge had guessed deceased had been stabbed by Suresh twice in lane probably once from front and again while he fell or was trying to run away - He could not have moved far from scene where he was stabbed - High Courts reasons to dislodge this inference are insufficient - Appeal allowed

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appellant's conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was set aside, and conviction/sentence under 324 IPC was considered, with discussion on whether dying declarations and eye-witness testimony could sustain a 302/34 conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court's findings about place of stabbing and credibility of eye-witnesses were reviewed, noting that site plans did not show kitchen or blood evidence, affecting the determination of where stabbing occurred and who could witness it (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that where an acquittal is reviewed, the appellate court should not overturn it unless the record shows the trial court’s view is not reasonably sustainable, and it permits altering convictions only if the view favorable to conviction is at least as acceptable; it ultimately allows the State’s appeal against acquittal to convict under 302/34 only if warranted by evidence (!) (!) . - The High Court’s concurrent findings that all eye-witnesses did not witness at the time/place alleged and the omission of certain facts in the F.I.R. are considered significant in evaluating veracity and dying declarations (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court ultimately allows the appeal, setting aside the 302/34 conviction and directing release if already served, and clarifies procedural posture regarding SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 certificates (!) (!) (!) . - Key factual dispute centers on whether Harbinder Singh was stabbed near the kitchen in the room or in the lane, and who could plausibly be witnesses to the stabbing (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Judgment

BEG, J.: - The sole appellant Ram Kumar Pandey aged 45 years, was tried together with Suresh Kumar, aged 20 years, and Mulkraj aged 45 years and Ramesh Kumar, aged 17 years, on two charges framed against him. These were:

"Firstly; That you on or about the 23rd day of March 1970 at Raipur, did an act, to wit, hit Uttam Singh with a knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances, that if by that act, you had caused the death of Uttam Singh you would have been guilty of murder and that you caused grievous hurt to Uttam Singh by the said act and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and;

Secondly: That at the said time and place, you or some other persons did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Harbinder Singh and the said act was done in furtherance of the common intention of all and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session".

2. Suresh Kumar, Mulkraj, and Ramesh Kumar, were accused of offences punishable under Sections 307/114 and Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 114 Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge of Raipur, who had tried the case. found Suresh Kumar guilty of the murder by stabbing of Harbinder Singh, aged about 16 years, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He convicted the appellant under Section 324 I. P. C. Only for the injury inflicted on Uttam Singh and sentenced him to one year s rigorous imprisonment, but acquitted him of other charges. He also acquitted the accused Ramesh and Mulkraj of all charges levelled against them.

3. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the acquittal of the appellant Ram Kumar Pandey of the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C., and of Mulkraj and Ramesh Kumar of all charges. Suresh Kumar the son of Mulkraj, appealed against his conviction under Section 302, simpliciter, but this appeal was dismissed by the High Court which maintained his life imprisonment. The High Court also allowed the State s appeal against the acquittal of Ram Kumar Pandey for injuries caused to Harbinder Singh, and, convicting him under S. 302/34 I. P. C.. it sentenced him to life imprisonment. It convicted Mulkraj of an offence punishable only under Section 323 I. P. C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200/-. And in default of payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for two months. It upheld the acquittal of Ramesh Kumar Ahuja of all charges.

4. This appeal has come up before us after a certificate granted by the High Court under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution but the certificate says that the appellant is entitled to it under the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. 1970. Strictly speaking, no certificate of the High Court is required for such an appea1 where an acquittal has been converted into a conviction under S. 302/34 I. P. C. and a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon an accused person The appeal in such a case lies as a matter of right to this Court under the Act of 1970.

5. The only question before us now is whether the appellant who had not appealed at all to the High Court against his conviction under Section 324 I. P. C. which stands was rightly convicted by the High Court under Section 302/34 I. P. C. after setting aside his resulting for the graver offence for injuries resulting in the death of Harbinder Singh.

6. The well settled rule of practice in a case of an appeal against an acquittal is that the appellate Court should not interfere with the acquittal merely because it can take one of the two reasonably possible views which favours conviction. But, if the view of the Trial Court is not reasonably sustainable, on the evidence on record the Appellate Court will interfere with an acquittal. If the Appellate Court sets aside an acquittal and convicts, we have to be satisfied after examining the prosecution and defence cases and the Crucial points emerg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document