JUDGMENT - Gajendragadkar, J.

1. On behalf of the State Mr. Mandgi has contended that there is no room for giving the benefit of doubt to the accused in the present case and that on the facts proved by the prosecution there should be no difficulty in holding that the charges both under Section 302 and Section 307 have beer, brought home to the accused.

2. Now, before we proceed to deal with the merits of this case it is necessary to consider what our approach should be in dealing with an appeal against an acquittal like the present. Mr. Mandgi has invited our attention to two decisions of the Privy Council where this question has been considered. In -- Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) (A) Lord Russell delivering the judgment of the Board has observed that on an appeal from an order of acquittal on a matter of fact the High Court has full power to interfere with the findings of fact of the trial Judge and to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. The learned Judge then referred to the provisions of Section 417, Criminal P. C. which deals with t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document