IMPORTANT POINTS
Order of acquittal cannot be interfered without compelling reasons and merely becuas there can be another view possible.
Person holding inquest is not to enquire about who are the accused.
If medical evidence completely rules out possibility as per ocular evidence, medical evidence will prevail.
In case of material contradiction between evidence of different prosecution witnesses and ocular and medical evidence accused cannot be convicted.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. Since these appeals involve the same impugned judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of offences under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short), we deem it fit to dispose of the same by a common judgment.

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2. The complaint in this case, which led to the trial, was lodged by one Swarn Singh-PW1. The complaint in brief is as follows:

On 22.08.1992, when he, along with his father, mother and maternal uncle, were going on a tractor from Nanakmatta to their village and his father was driving the tractor, when the tractor reached one kilometre from their house, they found that a bullock cart has blocked their passage. The tractor stopped near the bullock cart. One of the accused-Pahalwan Singh appeared. The other accused, along with him, were hiding near a tree. He was having a sword in his hand. Resham Singh, who is the third respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1857 of 2013, had a country-made pistol in his hands. Daleep Singh had a ballam (a sharp edged weapon), his son Jagir Singh carried a country-made pistol. Darshan Singh also had a country-made pistol. Veer Singh was having a sharp-edged weapon (campa). They started hurling abuses on the family of the complainant. Resham Singh fired with his country-made pistol. Pahalwan Singh and Darshan Singh fired with their country-made pistol, and Veer Singh Singh with his campa, inflicted blows on the complainant’s father-Singhara Singh. He fell from the tractor and died. On raising alarm, all the accused fled away on the bullock cart. The complainant, his father and maternal uncle did not dare to fight the assailants.

3. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the IPC. Separate charges were also framed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Arms Act’, for short). PWs 1 to 6 were examined from the side of the prosecution. Statements of the accused were taken under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.PC.’, for short).

4. The Trial Court convicted Pahalwan Singh, Resham Singh, Daleep Singh, Veer Singh and Darshan Singh for offences under Sections 302 read with 148 and 149 of the IPC. Resham Singh and Darshan Singh were acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

5. The High Court, by the impugned order, has acquitted the accused. The judgment reveals that the following aspects weighed with the High Court in its decision to acquit the accused:

i. There were material variations in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2.

ii. PW2 was not a non-partisan witness. He is distantly related to the informant.

iii. PW4 is none other than maternal uncle referred to by the complainant as having travelled along with him on the tractor. He has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version.

iv. The case of the prosecution that after the firing and the inflicting the wound injuries on the deceased, the accused fled away in the bullock cart, could not be believed.

v. PW1 deposed that the lights of the tractor were on. PW2, on the other hand, deposed that the bulb of the tractor was off.

vi. Injury no.4 was a gunshot wound on the left side of the back of the deceased.

vii. According to prosecution evidence, accused blocked the way of the tractor and accused fired while standing in front of the tractor. There was material inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence in this regard.

viii. It is noticed by the High Court that PW3-Doctor, in his evidence, does not support the case of the prosecution.

ix. The High Court noticed, according to the prosecution evidence, that the deceased was driving the tractor and his close relatives, viz., his wife, the complainant, who has been examined as PW1, and maternal uncle, were travelling along with the accused