1950 (3) TMI 22 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's power to reverse an acquittal under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
2. Whether the appellant delivered the fatal blow.
3. Whether the appellant had any justification or mitigation for his act.
4. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Power to Reverse an Acquittal under Section 417, CrPC:
The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court has full power to review the evidence and reverse an acquittal under Section 417, CrPC. The Court cited 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor,' stating that Sections 417, 418, and 423 of the Code allow the High Court to review the evidence comprehensively and reach a conclusion that an acquittal should be reversed. The High Court must give proper weight to the trial Judge's views on witness credibility, the presumption of innocence, the right of the accused to benefit from any doubt, and the reluctance of an appellate court to disturb a finding of fact by a Judge who saw the witnesses.

2. Whether the Appellant Delivered the Fatal Blow:
Both the Sessions Court and the High Court concluded that the appellant delivered the fatal blow to Gayaram. The Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of Agardas and other circumstances, while the High Court also considered Hariram's first information report and the corroborating evidence of Agardas. Therefore, the matter rests on the affirmative conclusion that the appellant delivered the fatal blow.

3. Whether the Appellant Had Any Justification or Mitigation for His Act:
The Sessions Judge initially held that the accused was protected by the law of private defense, but this view was negated by the High Court. The Supreme Court supported the High Court's judgment, stating that on the evidence of Thandaram, the plea of the right of private defense could not be sustained. Thandaram testified that Hiraram, Gayaram's son, was the first to commit assault on Prandas. However, this did not justify Prandas inflicting a fatal blow on Gayaram, who was not with Hiraram at the time.

4. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC:
Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC, states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The Sessions Judge believed there was a free fight between the parties, while the High Court initially seemed to express conflicting opinions but ultimately concluded that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's view could not be sustained, noting that the High Court did not provide grounds for its conclusion and did not reverse the Sessions Judge's findings regarding the injuries sustained by Prandas and the sequence of events. The Supreme Court concluded that the case falls within the second part of Section 304, IPC, dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and altered the conviction to Section 304, IPC, sentencing the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under Section 323, IPC, were upheld, with sentences to run concurrently.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's power to reverse an acquittal under Section 417, CrPC, affirmed that the appellant delivered the fatal blow, negated the plea of private defense, and found that Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC, applied. The conviction was altered to Section 304, IPC, with a sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment, and the sentence under Section 323, IPC, was to run concurrently.