1975 Supreme(SC) 412

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND A.C. GUPTA, JJ.
Ediga Sanjanna and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of A.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 1971,
D/- 10-10-1975.

Headnote:

SC Act, 1970 - Section 2 - Indian Penal Code – Section 149/302 – Offence of murder - Order of acquittal - Rigorous imprisonment - Accused Nos. 1 to 9 are residents of village Putlur and accused No. 10 used to reside in a neighbouring village Cherukulapadu, about two and a half miles from Putlur. For over twenty years these villages have been the scene of bitter rivalry between two communities, Kapus and Upparas. One Chinna Thimmana was the leader of the Upparas until 1956 when he was murdered. Prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 5, 6 and several others were charged with the murder of the said Thimmanna but they were all acquitted. This was followed by several criminal cases and proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure involving members of both the warring factions. After the murder of Thimmanna Accused Nos. 3 and 4 became the leader of the Upparas. The leader of the Kapus was Chinna Sidda Reddy who was murdered on August 1, 1968. A fortnight before the occurrence, there was an altercation between Accused No. 4 on one side and P. W. 6 and Chinna Sidda Reddy on the other, over the purchase of certain lands - Prosecution account of the occurrence on August 1, 1968 is as follows. Chinna Sidda Reddy and his brother P. W. 1 stated out from their houses just before midday to go to another village called Dhone. After they had proceeded some distance along the road leading to village Cherukulapadu on route to Dhone, they overtook P. Ws. 2 and 3 who were going – Held, We do not consider it necessary to refer to the various discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5 and 6 mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court. In view of the fact that they belonged to the group led by the deceased, the High Court also felt that their evidence would be acceptable only if it was corroborated by independent evidence. The High Court thought that P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 were reliable independent witnesses. We have indicated several material discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses which to the trial Court appeared serious but the High Court did not consider them of any importance. The High Court finding these witnesses reliable may be a possible point of view, but the view taken by the trial Court on a detailed examination of their evidence cannot also be called unreasonable. We have referred above to some of the circumstances which according to the trial Court remain unexplained if the prosecution version of the incident is accepted as true; the High Court does not appear to have taken note of these circumstances except that as regards the abrasions it suggested that they could have been caused by "Coming into contact with a hard object like the wheels of the carts." We doubt if this theory could account for the abrasions all over the body of the deceased, keeping in mind the manner of assault decried by the prosecution witnesses. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the oral evidence, these circumstances acquire added importance and call for an explanation, but no explanation is available. The additional Sessions Judge also observed that in faction cases the tendency is to implicate in one sweep as many as possible, he held that the incident could not have taken place in the manner alleged and doubted that all the accused took part in it. He felt that it was unsafe to convict any of the accused on the evidence on record and accordingly acquitted all of them. Another view of the matter might also be possible, but the view taken by the trial court is certainly not perverse or arbitrary - High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal and must express its reason in the judgment which lead it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. Further, if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It would follow as a corollary from that that if the view taken by the trial could in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occasions for the reversal of that view would not arise - Appeal allowed