2006 Supreme(SC) 509

2006(4) Supreme 297
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Umrao—Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors.—Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1387 of 1999
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1388/1999
Decided on 12-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in Crl. A.No. 1387/1999 : R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma, S.S. Yadav, Govind Kaushik and Anis Ahmed, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl. A.No. 1388/1999 and for the Respondents in Crl. A.No. 1387/1999 : Dr. Gajinder Chouhan & T.V. George, Advocates.
For the Respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 1387 and 1388 of 1999 : Anoop G. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
If two views are possible the appellate Court should not interfere with judgment of acquittal passed by Court below.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/149, 148, 307/149, 325/149—Six respondents-accused were convicted under by trial Court—High Court in appeal set aside the convicted and held each accused, responsible for his individual act and convicting them according and convicted accused, who had inflicted fatal blow to deceased, u/s 304 Part II IPC—Appeal by informant—Appellant-informant with his brother injured and son deceased went to the field and saw accused persons removing electric motor therefrom—Accused ‘Y’ inflicted two blow by reverse side of kassi, he was carrying, on head of deceased—Accused 2 and 3 also hurled blows with Jelly and lathi on wrist and back side of shoulders of deceased—Informant and his brother were also injured—High Court found that well was a joint of both parties and respondents had not formed an unlawful assembly with object of killing son of informant and found that prosecution did not explain injuries on person of accused and there must have been a free-fight in which persons from both sides were injured—High Court found that victim-deceased was discharged from hospital on same day i.e. 17-9-1992 and no fracture was found on his head but when he was re-admitted on 25-9-1992 he had fracture of head and defence plea could not be ruled out that he suffered head fracture by fall—Question was whether respondents had any intention to cause death of deceased or attempt to murder brother of informant—High Court was right in its findings—If two views were possible, appellate Court should not interfere with judgment of acquittal.

       Held : The fact that the parties were armed, is not in dispute. The plea of the respondents was that the injuries were inflicted on the deceased Rajinder as also upon that the appellant and Rewti in exercise of their right of self-defence. It may not be necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused in all circumstances, but, it is trite that when such a plea is raised and the court opines that the version of the accused persons may be correct, the explanation of injuries on the person of the accused cannot be put to a back seat or cannot simply be ignored. We have perused the evidence of Dr. Sanjeev Dua, who examined himself as P.W. 8. Dr. Dua, in his evidence, stated that the possibility of Rajinder having received head injury after the discharge at 8.a.m. on 25.9.1992 and before his re-admission on the same day at 9.p.m. in the Civil Hospital, cannot be ruled out. On re-examination by the prosecution Dr. Dua categorically stated that as there was a head injury, he did not go into the detail. The evidence of Dr. Dua, whereupon the learned Trial Judge, inter alia , relied upon is suggestive of the fact that the possibility of the said deceased Rajinder suffering a head injury after he was discharged from the hospital could not be ruled out. It is not in dispute that X-ray of the head of the deceased was taken when he was admitted in the hospital on 17.9.1992 but no such injury was detected. The subsequent explanation offered by the prosecution that a small fracture might not have been noticed in the X-ray machine, is a matter of surmise and conjecture. We have noticed hereinbefore that Dr. Sanjeev Dua-P.W. 8, who had operated upon the deceased, categorically stated that the fracture was significant. Even according to the doctor such a fracture might have been suffered by the deceased after he was discharged from the hospital.(Para 23)

       Evidently, the High Court was right in its finding that the appellant could not be found to be guilty for causing the death of the deceased Rajinder.(Para 24)

       Similarly, the findings of the High Court to the effect that the respondents had not formed any common intention, therefore, cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. The fact that both parties caused injuries to the members of the other side is not in dispute. The fact that the well was situated on the land of the respondent, is also not in dispute. It has been found as of fact that the electric motor installed in the well belonged to one of the respondents. (Para 25)

       The prosecution laid a false claim thereover. It is in this situation, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any offence if they had been removing the motor, which was installed by them, from the well, which is said to be jointly owned by the parties. If, on the other hand, defence version is to be accepted, the appellant and the other witnesses having no right over the said motor, could not have removed the same from the well. In any view of the matter, the dispute was in regard to removing of the motor from the well. The High Court, thus, cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at the finding that the respondents had no common object either to cause death of the deceased Rajinder or to attempt to cause murder of Rewti. It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. (Para 26)