1974 (12) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge and subsequent conviction by the High Court.
2. Scope and power of the High Court in an appeal from the order of acquittal.
3. Analysis of the prosecution story and evidence.
4. Evaluation of the reasons for acquittal by the Sessions Judge.
5. High Court's justification for setting aside the acquittal.
6. Fairness of the investigation.
7. Common object of the unlawful assembly and appropriate convictions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal by the Sessions Judge and Subsequent Conviction by the High Court:
The six appellants were acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Faizabad. However, the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowed the State's appeal, convicting appellant Ram Kumar under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Additionally, Ram Kumar was convicted under Sections 148 and 323 read with 149. The other appellants were convicted under Sections 147 and 323 read with 149, receiving one year's rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently.

2. Scope and Power of the High Court in an Appeal from the Order of Acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court has full and wide powers in appeals against acquittal as in appeals against conviction. The High Court must respect the fundamental principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence and the benefit of reasonable doubt for the accused. The High Court's judgment must reflect due regard for the trial court's views on witness credibility and should only disturb findings of fact if justified by a careful examination of the evidence.

3. Analysis of the Prosecution Story and Evidence:
The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred due to a longstanding enmity and immediate disputes over land demarcation. On 15-10-1967, following a land measurement dispute, the appellants attacked Ram Palat and his associates. Ram Kumar allegedly killed Vishwanath with a spear, while the other appellants attacked with lathis. The prosecution's evidence included eyewitness testimonies and medical reports confirming the injuries and cause of death.

4. Evaluation of the Reasons for Acquittal by the Sessions Judge:
The Sessions Judge doubted the prosecution case for several reasons, including alleged interpolation in police reports, unreliable witness testimonies, and discrepancies in the sequence of events and injuries. The High Court found these reasons to be flimsy and not meriting consideration. The High Court noted that the trial court's judgment was perverse and rightly set it aside.

5. High Court's Justification for Setting Aside the Acquittal:
The High Court rejected the Sessions Judge's dismissal of the prosecution's story about the land demarcation and the sequence of events leading to the murder. It found the eyewitness testimonies credible despite minor discrepancies and held that the prosecution's version of the occurrence was true. The High Court also dismissed the defense's suggestion that Vishwanath was murdered earlier due to an alleged illicit relationship.

6. Fairness of the Investigation:
The High Court found no evidence of bias or partiality in the police investigation. It rejected the defense's claims that the injuries on the prosecution witnesses were self-inflicted to fabricate their presence at the crime scene. The High Court upheld the credibility of the investigation and the prosecution's case.

7. Common Object of the Unlawful Assembly and Appropriate Convictions:
The High Court concluded that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to assault Ram Palat and Vishwanath, with knowledge that grievous hurt might be caused. While the High Court could have convicted the other appellants under Section 326 read with Section 149, it chose a lenient approach, convicting Ram Kumar under Section 302 and the others under Section 323 read with Section 149. The convictions for rioting under Sections 147 and 148 were also justified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the High Court's judgment. The High Court's decision to convict Ram Kumar under Section 302 and the other appellants under Section 323 read with Section 149, along with rioting charges, was deemed cautious and lenient. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.