IMPORTANT POINT
While dealing with a case of acquittal High Court shall not ordinarily overturn a judgment if two views are possible.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Appellant with three other accused was tried for offence u/s 302, 307, 504 r/w 34—Trial Court acquitted all accused—In State appeal, High Court convicted appellant u/s 302 IPC and other accused for offences u/s 307 and 504/34 IPC—Appeal—Accused No. 1 had quarrel with deceased when while ploughing his land, accused No. 1 started ploughing land of deceased—PWs. 2, 3 and 4, son, wife and daughter of deceased were present on spot—All four accused assaulted prosecution party wherein appellant assaulted deceased by hammer and PWs. 3 and 4 were also assaulted by other accused —Trial Court noticed various discrepancies in its acquittal judgment—High Court relied on testimony of eye witnesses and reversed the judgment—Appeal—View of trial Court could not be said to be perverse or same not possible to be taken—High Court while dealing with a case of acquittal, shall not ordinarily overturn judgment if two views were possible—Appellant had no land dispute with deceased and was only a friend of accused No. 1—Impugned judgment of High Court could not be sustained.
       Held : If the accused No.1 was not in possession of the lands in question, according to the learned Trial Judge, it would give rise to a doubt as to whether the genesis of the occurrence was correct. He has furthermore noticed that the independent witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 14 and 15, although arrived at the spot, did not support the prosecution case, whereas according to P.Ws. 2 to 5, nobody had come and they did not meet anybody. As there were 30 to 40 houses nearby, it is improbable that nobody came to the place of occurrence. The learned trial judge furthermore noticed that there had been a serious inconsistency in the report of Investigation Officer to the effect that there was no house near the occurrence place, whereas according to P.Ws. 2 to 5 agricultural lands are surrounded by houses. Neither the prosecution has brought on record any material to show that there was a 5th person involved in crime and an iron bar was used. The presence of the 5th person and use of iron bar in causing injury, which was recorded by the doctor, the learned Judge has opined, was not explained by the prosecution. Even the requisition had not been proved. P.W.18, the doctor of Sangli Hospital did not produce the requisition addressed by P.W.1, who referred the injured persons to the said Hospital. He was known to the police as he had been involved in criminal cases from 1990. The prosecution has not proved to show that accused No.1 did not own any cart or oxen and had borrowed bullocks from accused No.4, except the statement of P.W.2. (Para 15)
       We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court has taken a contrary view. Had the High Court been the first court, probably its view could have been upheld, but it was dealing with a judgment of acquittal. We have taken notice of the depositions of the main prosecution witnesses only to show that the view of the learned Trial Judge cannot be said to be perverse or the same was not possible to be taken. While dealing with a case of acquittal, it is well known, the High Court shall not ordinarily overturn a judgment if two views are possible. Appellant had no axe to grind. The prosecution had not proved that he had any motive. He was only said to be the friend of accused No.1. If the accused had gone there with six others to assault the deceased and his family members, it is unlikely that appellant would take with him for the said purpose, a hammer to an agricultural field. The hammer is not ordinarily used for agricultural operations. Even if we assume that accused No.1 had been nurturing any grudge against the deceased, it is unlikely that Appellant would be involved therein. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly.(Paras 17 & 18)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—This appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.936 of 1999 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the State of Karnataka against a judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court was allowed.

2. Appellant herein along with three others was accused of commission of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). They were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge. On an appeal preferred by the State of Karnakata, the High Court set aside the said judgment and order, convicting the appellant herein for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court has further held all the accused to be guilty of commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to P.W.2-Bhaganna. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 were also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to P.W.3, as also for causing injury to P.W.4. No separate sentence, however, was awarded for offences punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The deceased and the accused No.1 Ningappa Bhaganna Padagaon belonged to the same village. Accused No.1 had no bullocks of his own. He allegedly borrowed the bullocks of Appellant. On 16.12.1997, while ploughing his own land, he allegedly started ploughing the land of the deceased to which he objected. P.W.2 – his son, Bhaganna, P.W.3 – his wife, Tangawwa and P.W.4 – his daughter, Mayavva, were said to be present at that place. The incidence, allegedly, took place at about 3.00 p.m. A quarrel ensued, whereupon all the four accused are said to have assaulted the deceased. Appellant is said to have assaulted him with a hammer. P.Ws.3 and 4 were also said to have been assaulted by the other accused with bamboo sticks. Seeing the assault Kusumavva, daughter of the deceased allegedly cried for help, whereupon, the accused persons are said to have left the sticks and hammer at the spot and ran away. Some alleged independent witnesses – P.W.14, Mallappa and P.W.15, Rawa Sab, were also said to be present at the spot. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station which is situated in the town of Athani is said to be about 5 to 5½ kms. P.W.5, allegedly, boarded a jeep, which was presumably being run as a taxi, went to the police station and informed about the incident to P.W.11-Nagaraj, a PSI attached to the said police station. No First Information Report was, however, lodged by him thence. The injured, allegedly, were lying unconscious for a period of about three hours. P.W.11 came to the spot and shifted all the injured persons to the Government hospital. Murugappa, the deceased, succumbed to his injuries at about 5.15 p.m on the same day. The First Information Report in relation to the said incident thereafter was lodged by P.W.2.

4. Before the learned Trial Court, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The learned Trial Judge on cogent reasons opined that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case. The learned Judge noticed various discrepancies in recording its judgment of acquittal.

5. The High Court, on the other hand, relied upon the testimonies of the so-called eye witnesses and reversed the said judgment.

6. It is not disputed before us that Appellant did not have any land in the vicinity. There exists a dispute as to whether the land where allegedly the occurrence took place belonged to the deceased. It has been found by the learned Trial Judge, which finding has not been set aside by the High court, that the land said to be adjacent to that of the deceased was given on lease by the Tahsildar to one Bhima Murari Banadi, who was a successful bidder in an auction held for the said purpose. The accused No.1, admi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 997

IMPORTANT POINTWhile dealing with a case of acquittal High Court shall not ordinarily overturn a judgment if two views are possible.

IMPORTANT POINT
While dealing with a case of acquittal High Court shall not ordinarily overturn a judgment if two views are possible.