IMPORTANT POINT
In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2003, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1919 of 1981, reversing the judgment dated 24.8.1981, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun, in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 1979 (Crime Case No. 10 of Police Station: Binawar, District: Badaun), whereby the trial court had convicted and sentenced the respondents to life imprisonment under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. On 7.1.1979 at about 8.45 P.M., respondents Munshi and Gobardhan had created a small drainage through the fields belonging to Rameshwar and Kandhari of their village. Rameshwar and Kandhari had come there and objected to the same. A scuffle broke out between them, and at that time, Jagan (since deceased) happened to pass through the said area, riding on the back of a horse. He had then intervened in the matter and asked both the parties not to fight. All of them had then proceeded towards the village. The accused Munshi and Gobardhan had also gone to the village hurriedly, abusing Rameshwar and Kandhari all along the way. Thereafter, it was in front of the house of one Phool Singh, situated in the village, that all the four accused had started beating up Jagan with lathis and Kanta (Farsa). The accused Munshi and Gobardhan had possessed lathis, the accused Collector Singh had been in possession of a gun, and the accused Afsar Singh had been in possession of the Kanta (Farsa).

B. Jagan (deceased), in order to save himself, had run inside the house of Phool Singh. All the accused had followed him and continued to beat him up inside the said house. The accused had then carried Jagan from the house of Phool Singh to the Baithak of the accused Munshi and Gobardhan, which was located alongside their house. They had kept Jagan inside the Baithak. The accused Collector Singh had then fired at Jagan twice and killed him. They had thereafter, bolted the Baithak from the outside before going away.

C. The village Chowkidar had furnished information pertaining to the said incident to the police, on the basis of which, a case had then been registered, and investigation had commenced in relation to the murder of Jagan by the accused, i.e. by Munshi, Gobardhan, etc.

D. During the course of the investigation, the dead body of Jagan was recovered from the house belonging to Munshi and Gobardhan. A 12 bore country made pistol, 3 live cartridges, and 2 paper tiklies of a 12 bore pistol were also recovered from there. A seizure memo was then prepared for the same. Samples of blood stained earth were also taken from the spot. The dead body of Jagan was sealed and was thereafter, sent for postmortem examination.

E. After the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against all the accused persons. The case was then committed to the Sessions Court for trial vide order dated 10.2.1979. All the accused denied the charges levelled against them, and pleaded not guilty.

F. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 24.8.1981, held the accused Munshi, Gobardhan, Collector Singh and Afsar Singh guilty for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC, and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

G. Aggrieved, the said convicts filed an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed by it, vide its impugned judgment and order. Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri Amit Singh, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that respondent no. 1 Munshi has died, and that thus, the appeal against him stands abated. His name may be deleted from the array of respondents, and the same is accordingly, deleted. Hence, the appeal is limited to respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

It has further been submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show