The Supreme Court will be slow in reversing an acquittal unless there is a perverse and erroneous appreciation of evidence, and will not interfere with the acquittal if the High Court has given tenable reasons for it.

Judgement

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.- These two appeals arise from the same judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 144, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Among the five respondents, the 5th a respondent passed away during the pendency of the appeals. All the respondents were found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat for all the offences charged against them and for the main offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, they had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. In the appeal filed by these respondents, the High Court was of theview that the prosecution failed to bring home their guilt. Accused 5 was the paternal uncle of deceased Natwarlal Bhanubhai. Accused 2 is the son-in-law of Accused 5. Accused 1 is a brother of Accused 2. Accused 3 and Accused 4 are cousins of Accused 2. The prosecution case was that on 13-11-1985, till the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to the house of the deceased and forcibly took him to a nearby babul tree and caused him a series of injuries and he died on the spot. PW 7 is the widow of the deceased and PW 4 is the son of the deceased. At the time of the incident, some children were playing in the neighbourhood. On SCCing the assault, they made a noise and after hearing the noise, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 11, the brother of the deceased came to the place of occurrence. PW 11 took the injured Natwarlal Bhanubhai to the Civil Hospital at Surat where the doctor examined him and declared him to be dead.

3. From the side of the prosecution, PW 7 and PW 4 were examined as eyewitnesses. PW 11, who gave the FI statement deposed that he had SCCn the accused persons at the place of the incident. The High Court held that there were certain infirmities in the prosecution case, and hence the accused persons were not guilty of the offences charged against them.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that PW 7 and PW 4 who claimed to be eyewitnesses cannot be believed for various reasons. It was submitted that the incident happened on 13-11-1985 but these two witnesses were questioned by the investigation officer only on 15-11-1985.

No proper explanation was given by the investigation officer. There is evidence to show that the investigation officer had visited the house of the f deceased on the very next day. It SCCms that there was an attempt by the prosecution to show that PW 7, the widow of the deceased was unconscious during this period and therefore, she could not be questioned by the police. But they could have questioned PW 4, the son of the deceased at least on the very next day. The delay in questioning these witnesses by the investigation officer is a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution. We do not thinkthat the High Court erred in disbelieving these witnesses.

5. PW 11, the brother of the deceased gave the PI statement wherein he stated that he was the eyewitness. He gave a detailed account regarding the alleged manner in which the incident happened but when he was examined as a witness, he stated that he came to the scene of occurrence only after the incident and the accused were found standing near the deceased with various weapons. Therefore, the evidence of PW 11 also is tainted with certain embellishments. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out various infirmities in the prosecution case. According to PW 7 and PW 4, the accused came to their house, pulled the deceased out of the house and took him to a nearby babul tree. Why the accused who were armed with weapons did not assault the deceased at the house itself still remained a mystery. This caused some suspicion as the defence version was that the deceased was having an affair with another woman and in that connection, there was a quarrel and he must have been done away with by some other assailants