2010 Supreme(SC) 315

2010 (3) Supreme 39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
M.C. Ali & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Kerala — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 499 of 2002
Decided on : 13-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal.
2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the presumption of innocence of the accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Sections 302, 307, 149 and 34- Prosecution of 13 persons including six appellants for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC- Upon trial, six appellants were convicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC while Accused Nos. 7 to 13 were found not guilty and acquitted of all charges- On appeal by convicted accused their convictions as well as their sentences were set aside by High Court- The case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal- On a reappraisal of evidence led by parties, Sessions Judge held that prosecution had failed to prove offences alleged against accused and acquitted all of them-On challenge thereagainst by State and PW2,High Court, holding that prosecution had conclusively proved case against accused Nos. 1 to 6 and findings recorded by Sessions Judge were perverse and manifestly erroneous ,set aside judgment of Trial Court –Appeals thereagainst-Held Trial Court had meticulously examined entire evidence, to record its conclusions- There was a clear cut enmity between PW5 and his family on the one side and the accused party on the other side-The incident took place in the dark- Trial Court noticed that none of the torches were recovered or produced by any of the concerned persons- There was also no moon light- In such circumstances, recognition of six accused was not possible- Trial Court meticulously examined the sequence of events with regard to the recording of the FIR- It could not be held that conclusion reached by Trial Court that occurrence report could not have been sent earlier, as the same was yet to be prepared,was not possible- FIR was recorded at 0030 hrs on 31.1.1994. –It was not received by the Magistrate till 3.30 p.m. on 31.1.1994-Even though names of the accused were mentioned in Ex.P.1.- But they were not mentioned in the relevant column of the inquest report- If the First Information Statement Ex.P.1 had been prepared prior to Ex.P.14, the names would surely have been mentioned therein- No explanation with regard to the injuries suffered by the accused-This apart, all the witnesses being interested witnesses, their evidence could not be believed in the absence of independent corroboration-Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, held not possible to agree with High Court that findings recorded by the Trial Court were perverse or that only one conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused was possible-Appeals allowed. (Paras 45 to 52)

       Facts of the Case :

       Thirteen persons including six appellants were prosecuted herein in the instant case for offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. Upon trial, six appellants had been convicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment together with various other periods of imprisonment under different sections. Accused Nos. 7 to 13 were found not guilty and acquitted of all the charges. The convicted accused filed Appeal before High Court. High Court was pleased to accept the appeal filed by convicts and their convictions as well as their sentences were set aside. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. On a reappraisal of evidence led by parties, Sessions Judge held that prosecution had failed to prove offences alleged against accused and acquitted all of them.On challenge thereagainst by State and PW2,High Court, holding that prosecution had conclusively proved case against accused Nos. 1 to 6 and findings recorded by Sessions Judge were perverse and manifestly erroneous set aside judgment of Trial Court.

       2.Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Trial Court had meticulously examined entire evidence, to record its conclusions. There was a clear cut enmity between PW5 and his family on the one side and the accused party on the other side.It was a religious dispute which undoubtedly led to high tension. The majority group had gone so far as to encourage the members of its community to annihilate PW5 and his family. The incident took place in the dark. Trial Court noticed that none of the torches were recovered or produced by any of the concerned persons. There was also no moon light. In such circumstances, recognition of six accused may not be possible. Trial Court meticulously examined the sequence of events with regard to the recording of the FIR. It could not be held that conclusion reached by Trial Court that occurrence report could not have been sent earlier, as the same was yet to be prepared,was not possible. FIR was recorded at 0030 hrs on 31.1.1994. It was not received by the Magistrate till 3.30 p.m. on 31.1.1994.Even though names of the accused were mentioned in Ex.P.1. But they were not mentioned in the relevant column of the inquest report. If the First Information Statement Ex.P.1 had been prepared prior to Ex.P.14, the names would surely have been mentioned therein. There was absolutely no explanation with regard to the injuries suffered by the accused. This apart, all the witnesses being interested witnesses, their evidence could not be believed in the absence of independent corroboration. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it was held not possible to agree with High Court that findings recorded by Trial Court were perverse or that only one conclusion consistent with guilt of the accused was possible. Two views being reasonably possible High Court ought not to have interfered with the verdict of acquittal recorded by Trial Court- Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside .Appeals were allowed.