The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and an order of acquittal should only be reversed if there are compelling reasons to do so.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. SIKRI, J.

After hearing these appeals, the same were allowed with the following order :

“The parties have completed their arguments. It is 03.58 p.m. Therefore, it is not possible to dictate the judgment in full.

We are allowing these appeals. The detailed judgment shall 2 follow.

This short order is passed because of the reason that two of the appellants namely Bhola and Khalil are in jail. We direct that the appellants namely Bhola and Khalil shall be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any other case.”

2. We hereby give our reasons in support of the aforesaid conclusion.

3. In these four appeals, appellants were accused, along with two more persons for committing offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34. The appellants are Ramesh, Bhola, Paramjeet Singh and Khalil. Accused Paramjeet Singh and Ramesh were also charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Respective charges were framed against the persons under the aforesaid provisions. The accused persons pleaded innocence. Prosecution led its evidence. The accused persons did not examine any witness in defence but in the statements recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) they denied the charges levelled against them. Their version was that of total denial and false implication. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nainital, vide judgment dated 28th April, 1997 aquitted all the accused persons of all the charges, as according to the trial court, the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the accused persons. Specific finding was recorded to the effect that it was a case of no evidence relating to blind murder which had taken place in the midnight. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the State Government preferred appeal in the High Court. The High Court has, vide impugned judgment dated 7th April, 2010 overturned the verdict of the trial court, holding that the entire evidence on record leads to the conclusion that these four persons had committed the offence with which they were charged. They are, accordingly, convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 5000/- on each of these accused persons has also been imposed with further stipulation that in default of payment of fine the convicted persons would undergo imprisonment for further period of six months. Paramjeet and Ramesh have also been convicted under the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months each for this offence.

4. To recaptulate the prosecution case in brief, it alleged that one Birendra Majumdar (PW-2), who was the servant of deceased Manoharlal and his wife Hardeep Kaur, was coming from the sugarcane field owned by Manoharlal at about 5 p.m. on 25th May, 1995. At that time, when he reached near the tube well of the co-accused Birsa Singh(PW-2), saw that accused Birsa Singh along with his son Paramjeet and two other co-accused Bhola and Khalil, were conspiring together. As they were talking loudly, he could hear their conversation. According to PW-2, Birsa Singh allegedly told Bhola and Khalil that work had to be done in the night itself and the payment shall be received by them after a week. After hearing this conversation, PW-2 went to the house of Manoharlal. However, after reaching there, he could see that three guests were also sitting with him. Therefore, he did not disclose about the conspiracy to him. Thereafter, he completed his daily routine work, being the servant of Manoharlal and after serving meal to them, went to sleep in his cottage in the farm.

5. As per the prosecution, on the intervening night of 25th/26th May, 1995, Manoharlal (victim) and his wife Hardeep Kaur (victim) were sleeping in the courtyard of their farmhouse. So also according to PW-2, who is the servant of Manoharlal, he was sleeping in his cottage. A