The court upheld the principle that the High Court should not interfere with reasonable doubts in acquittals.

1. Altogether seven persons were put on trial for offences under S.148, S.323 and S.302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 20-1-1997 acquitted all the accused persons. Aggrieved by their acquittal, the State preferred an appeal and the High Court by the impugned judgment maintained the acquittal of the three accused persons but convicted the appellants under S.302/34 and
323/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively.

2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence.

3. According to the prosecution, on 29-1-1994, the informant Madan Lai (PW 6) and his father Dhulji, the deceased, were sleeping in a room adjoining their field and his nephew PW 1, Rameshwar was sleeping outside. According to the prosecution, at 12.15 in the night the appellants herein came on a motorcycle and threatened Rameshwar who was sleeping outside. Appellant 2 also named Rameshwar was armed with knife, whereas other appellants were armed with lathis. PW 1 Rameshwar raised an alarm and on hearing the same, the informant PW 6 Madan Lal and deceased Dhulji came out of the room and all the appellants started beating them. Madan Lal got knife injury on the head and lathi injuries on hands and legs.

4. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that Appellant 2, Rameshwar stabbed Dhulji with knife which hit him in the chest and lathi injuries were inflicted on the head. In the occurrence, according to the prosecution, PW 1 Rameshwar got injuries in his left arm and knee and Dhulji died on account of the injuries sustained by him.

5. After usual investigation, charge - sheet was submitted and the appellants were committed to the Court of Session to face trial. The appellants denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried.

6. Prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, had mainly relied on the evidence of PW 1 Rameshwar and PW 6 Madan Lal who claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence. Prosecution had also examined PW 7, Dr. M.K. Pancholi, who had conducted the post - mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He had found four injuries on the person of the deceased and in his opinion the injuries caused on the head and Injury 4 caused on right parietal region were by hard and blunt substance, whereas Injuries 2 and 3 were by a sharp - cutting weapon.

7. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held that the deceased Dhulji died homicidal death. However, it found that the evidence of PW 6 Madan Lal is not reliable on account of contradictions in vital particulars, omissions and further his evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence.

8. In this connection the trial court has observed as follows:
"The version of PW 1 Rameshwar is that accused Rameshwar stabbed knife in the chest and stomach and Ramesh, Badri and Shankar beat Dhulji with stick which has hit on the knees of both legs. Whereas PW 6 Madan states that Ramesh, Badri and Shankar beat Dhulji with lathis. He states further that Ramesh hit lathi in the head which he saw. But the said statement of Madan (PW 6) is corroborated neither by PW 1 Rameshwar nor the first information report, Ext. P - 21 and his police statement, Ext. D - l. He does not mention any reason as to why this was not got written by him in his report and police statement. PW 6 Madan
Lai states that he is telling this in the Court for the first time. Thus, the said statement of Madan Lal w