IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the impugned conclusion is either perverse or fallacious and there is any compelling reason to take a contrary view the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with.

JUDGMENT

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. - The State of Haryana by special leave has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 483/74 whereby the High Court had allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 and acquitted them of their convictions under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C. respectively and the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two years, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. The relevant facts of the case are as follows:

2. Jagdish Chander (P.W. 3) and Krishan Kumar (the deceased herein) are the sons of one Shoo Narain. On 25-6-1972 at about 6.30 P.M. whilst the deceased Krishan Kumar was proceeding to his field after taking his meat was laid by the first respondent, who was armed with a single barrel 12 bore gun and accompanied by the second respondent, Dalip Singh. He abused the deceased in filthy language to which the deceased took a strong objection. This led to a quarrel between them. P.W. 3 on being attract by the hue and cry emanating from the scene of occurrence proceeded to the scene accompanied by one Jai Namin and found Krishan Kumar and the second respondent grappling, each one pulling the hair of the other. During the' scuffle, the first respondent, at the instigation of the second respondent, rued a shot at the deceased who on receipt of a gun shot wound on the right side of his face fell down. Thereafter, both the respondents made good their escape. P.W.3 leaving Jai Narain near the injured Krishan Kumar came to the village and took his father Sheo Narain to the place of occurrence. On enquiry by Sheo Narain, Krishan Kumar told that the first respondent rued a shot at him. Then Shoo Narain went to the police station, Tohana and laid the report at about 4.30 A.M.

3. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police after registering the case went to the scene of occurrence. In the meantime, Krishan Kumar had died. A.S.I. took up the investigation and he recovered a fired cartridge from the scene spot and two bills marked as Ext. P.S. and P.T. which were the bills for purchase of ammunition by the first respondent.

4. A.S.I. arrested the first respondent on 28-6-1972 and recovered the weapon of offence, namely, the gun. He sent the fired cartridge and the gun to the Forensic expert who after examining them gave his opinion that the fire cartridge recovered from the scene of occurrence had been the one fired from the gun.

5. The Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found as many as 4 gun shot wounds and gave his opinion that the deceased had died on account of the gunshot injuries to the lungs and the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W.-3 and Jai Narain figured as eye witnesses whilst Shoo Narain deposed that the deceased gave an oral dying declaration saying that he was shot by the first respondent. Both the respondents were examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old). They denied their complicity with the offence in question. The learned trial Judge convicted both the respondents for the offences charged and sentenced them as aforesaid. Both the convicted respondents preferred the Criminal Appeal before the High Court which for the following reasons set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the respondents. They are:

The occurrence took place at about sun-set.

The medical evidence is irreconcilably in conflict with the prosecution version in that while the deceased is said to have left his house after taking his last meal, the medical officer has opined that the deceased would have taken his last meal about 3 hours before his death.

The circumstances when examined in the light of the medical evidence show that the occurrence should have taken place by about 9.30 P.M.

Whilst the