IMPORTANT POINT
It is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

V. Balakrisbna Eradi, J. - Special leave granted.

Heard both sides.

2. The five appellants were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on a charge of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After a very detailed consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt. The respondent herein, who is a son of the deceased victim of the murder preferred a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Delhi under section 397/401 Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed that revision petition, set aside the acquittal of the appellants and remitted the case to the trial court for retrial.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court the appellants have come up to this Court with this appeal and the main contention raised by them is that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has transgressed the bounds of his revisional jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and setting aside their acquittal.

4. After hearing counsel appearing on both sides we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the aforesaid contention of the appellants is well founded and has to be up held:

5. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on the mid-night of 3rd and 4th June, 1980 while Laxman Singh (P.W. 1) was sleeping on the terrace of his house in the DESU Colony, Delhi along with his cousin Moti Lal (P.W. 7), the heard the noise of a quarrel and loud shouting from the lane below and on looking down from the terrace they found that deceased Ram Chander was being beaten by accused Nos. 1 and 4 (Appellant Nos. 1 and 4). Thereupon they rushed to the place (If the incident. One Babu Lal who was residing in the adjoining quarter also came there and when all the three tried to intervene and separate deceased Ram Chander and the two accused, the first accused called out to Bhagwat (second accused, who was looking down from his adjacent quarter asking him why he was just watching while Ram Chander was assaulting them. In response to the said call it is alleged that Bhagwat along with the remaining accused came there carrying lathis in their hands. There appears to have been a free for all fight. It is said that Ram Chander wielding a iron handle of a hand-pump was giving blows to the accused and he in turn was being beaten by lathis by the remaining persons. It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Chander was administered lathi blows on his head by accused Nos. 1 and 2, as a result of which he fell down bleeding and died on the spot. Thereafter all the five accused are said to have run away from the scene with their lathis.

6. In support of the prosecution story, three persons were examined as eye-witnesses namely, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7. P.W. 2 however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version in his deposition before the trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed at length the testimony given by P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 as well as the medical evidence adduced in the case. He found that there were serious discrepancies and glaring inconsistencies between the versions spoken by P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 and that the medical evidence also did not support their version of the incident. In the result be found that the testimony of these eye-witnesses could not be safely relied on and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has thought it fit to re-appreciate the evidence of the two eye-witnesses as well as the testimony given by the medical doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ram Chander. By such a process of elaborate re-examination of the evidence the learned Single Judge was inclined to reach a conclusion different from that recorded by the learned