The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to be reliable and capable of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal appeal arises from of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 1768 of 2005 dated 05.11.2009, wherein the High Court reversed the judgment and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad-Hoc) No. II, Manjeri dated 02.06.2005 acquitting the accused-appellants. The High Court set aside the same and convicted and sentenced the appellants. The appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, urging various legal grounds.

2. Our attention was drawn to the judgment and orders passed by the both the High Court and the Trial Court by the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties in justification of their respective submissions. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants invited our attention to the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment and submits that High Court held that the findings and reasons recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous in law and accordingly in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, re-appreciated the evidence on record and came to a different conclusion than the Trial Court. It is submitted that the same is contrary to the factual and legal evidence on record and therefore, the High Court has erred in law in reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the charges levelled against the appellants as the same is contrary to the principles of law laid down by various judgments of this Court.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further contends that the High Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence on record has reversed the finding of acquittal which is not correct, for the reason that the evidence of PW-2, who was also severely injured in the incident cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants. It is submitted that though PW-2 was admitted to the hospital on the night of the incident along with the deceased, he did not disclose the names of the accused persons who were involved in the commission of the offence to the Investigation Officer. It is further submitted that the statement of PW-2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigation Officer after 10 days from his discharge from the hospital, by which time, the accused persons had already been apprehended.

4. It is further submitted that apart from PW-2, PW-3 is another eyewitness to the occurrence according to the prosecution, who had accompanied the deceased to the hospital. He had told the doctor, who recorded the injuries in the post-mortem certificate of the deceased and the injuries certificate of PW-2 that the injuries were caused to the deceased by some unknown persons. The evidence of the said witness did not inspire confidence in the mind of Sessions Judge to record the finding of guilt on the charges levelled against the appellants. It is submitted that the Trial Court, being the original Court of appreciation of evidence on record, found fault with the case of the prosecution and did not accept the same and held that the charges are not proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that this finding of fact has erroneously been reversed by the High Court, though there is no substantive and legal evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against the appellants.

5. It is submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, injured eyewitnesses of the occurrence, whose evidence was not believed by the Trial Court, the High Court has erred in placing reliance on the very same evidence and reversing the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, which approach is wholly erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The learned senior counsel has thus, prayed for setting aside the same and restoring the judgment of acquittal of the appellants passed by the Trial Court.

6. On t