9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pher and the deceased Hausla Prasad had gone to a temple which is at a distance about 8 miles from the village of Jhampur where they lived. They left the temple late in the afternoon along with Dwarika and Lakhu whom they met at the temple. Soon after they crossed a river near the village of Singha Chanda they are alleged to have been attacked by the appellants. Dwarika brought a bullock' cart from a village called Gauhani and thereafter the four injured persons proceeded to the Tarabganj police station. On the way Rampher dictated the First Information Report to a boy called Gorakhnath and soon,, thereafter the report was lodged at the police station at about 12-30, at night. Hausla Prasad succumbed to his injuries just before the party reached the police station. He had' 12 injuries on his person, Lakhu and a swelling Rampher had received 6 injuries while Dwarika had received 9 injuries. The injuries received by these persons including, Hausla Prasad were mostly contused lacerated wounds and abrasions. The prosecution examined Rampher, Dwarika, Lakhu, Ram, Shanker and Ram Kripal (P. Ws 2 to 6) as eye-witnesses to the Occurrence. The learned Additional Session's Judge held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96); King-Emperor; v. U San Win ((1932) I.L.R. 10 Rangoon 312).) A contrary line of cases had, on the other hand, ruled that the Code of Criminal Procedure drew no distinction between an appeal from an acquittal and an appeal from a conviction, and no such distinction could be imposed by judicial decision. (See Queen-Empress v. Prag Dat((1898) I.L.R. 20 Allahabad 459); Queen-Empress v. Bibhuti Bhusan Bit((1890) I.L.R. 17 Calcutta 485); Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Behar and Orissa v. Mutukdhari Singh ((1915) 20 C.W.N. 128); Re Sinnu Goundan ((1914) I.L.R. 38 Madras 1028,1034); Queen-Empress v. Karigowda((1894) I.L.R. 19 Bombay 51). In Sheo Swarup and Ors. v. The King-Emperor,( 61 1. A. 398) these conflicting decisions were canvassed before the Privy Council but it saw no useful purpose in examining the long list of decisions. Observing that the answer to the question in issue would depend upon the construction of the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure,the,Privy Council noticed sections 404, 410, 417, 418 and 422, examined section 423 and concluded that the Code draw no distinction between an appeal against an acquittal and an appeal against a conviction, as regards the pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r weight to certain matters like the presumption of innocence, the benefit of' doubt etc. This qualification upon a power otherwise wide and unlimited was no more than differently expressed by this Court in Surajpal Singh v. The State([1952] S.C.R. 193), by saying that though it is well-established that the High Court has full power to review the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded, "it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons". The phrase "substantial and compelling reasons" became almost a part, as it were. of codified law and was repeatedly used by this Court with emphasis in cases like Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab([1953] S.C.R. 418), Puran v. State of' Punjab (A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 459), Aher Raja Khima v. The State of Saurashtra ([1955] 2 S.C.R.1285), Bhagwan Das v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1957 S. C. 589) and Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab. (A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 216) Judgments of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in approach. In Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab([1962] 1 Supp. S.C.R. 104. 1), a four-Judge Bench observed: "What may be called the 'golden thread running through all these ,decisions is the rule that in deciding appeals against acquittal the Court of Appeal must examine the evidence with particular care, must examine also the reasons on which the order of acquittal was based and should interfere with the order only when satisfied that the view taken by the acquitting Judge is clearly unreasonable." In Ramabhupala Reddy and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh(A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 460), the same thought was expressed by saying : "if two reasonable conclusions, can be reached oil the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of the trial court." Very recently, in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra(A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 262), this Court rejuvenated the suspect formula of "substantial and compelling grounds" thus : "We are clearly in agreement...... that an acquitted accused should not be put in peril of conviction on appeal save where substantial and ,compelling grounds exist for such a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are reasonably possible. the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed. if after applying these principles, not by their mechanical recitation in the judgment, the High Court has reached the conclusion that lie order of acquittal ought to be reversed, this Court will not reappraise evidence in appeals brought before it under article 136 of the Constitution. In such appeals, only such examination of the evidence would ordinarily be necessary as is required to see whether the High Court has applied the principles correctly. The High Court is the final court of facts and the reserve jurisdiction of this Court tinder article 136, though couched in wide terms, is by long practice exercised in exceptional cases where the High Court has disregarded the guide-lilies set by this Court for deciding appeals against acquittal or "by disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise, substantial and grave injustice has been done" or where the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the Court (See, Sanwat Singh & Or.;. v. State of Rajasthan([1961]3 S.C.R. 120, 134-135); Harbans Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is wellfounded and the-High Court was clearly in error in discarding it. The village of Singha Chanda is just about a furlong away from the scene of offence and yet Dwarika claims to have gone to Gauhani, which is about 3 or 4 miles away, to get a bullock-cart. The High Court observes:"It is not an unreasonable conduct on the part of the witnesses not to take chance in the nearby village for arranging for a bullock. cart when they felt sure that they would be able to procure one from a. village which was somewhat farther away, the persons who owned the bullock-cart being known to one of them." We find it difficult to endorse this view. After the bullock-cart was brought to the place (1) (19621 1 Supp. S.C. R. 104, 1 1 1. (2) A. I. R. 1971 S.C. 460, 464. (3) A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 55. 62. where the incident took place-Rampher and his tow companions claimed to have taken a longer route to reach the police station for the reason that taking the shorter route would have meant crossing a river twice. The river had but ankledeep water and was only 12 paces from one end to the other. Hausla Prasad was in a critical condition and it is impossible to believe that a longer route w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t caution. The High Court was not justified in holding that the only impact of the false discovery of an eye-witness on the prosecution case was that Rampher's evidence had to be rejected in part. Ram Shanker is also alleged to have been present at the time of the incident but he had admitted before the committing magistrate that he left his house for the temple at about 2- 30 p.m. That would make it impossible for him to be at the scene of offence at about 4 p.m. on his way back from the temple. He therefore improved his version by stating in the Sessions Court that he had left his house at about 6 a.m. He had also stated in the committing court that he was waiting at the scene of offence till about 8 p.m. but he denied in the Sessions Court that he had made any such statement. The learned Sessions Judge was therefore justified in rejecting the evidence of Ram Shanker. also. While dealing with the evidence of this witness the High Court observes that "the statement of a witness should be examined as a whole and the mere fact that the witness has denied certain statements made by him earlier under the challenge thrown to him in the witness-box during cross-examination should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
