9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts are these. Two groups the complainants' and the accused's have been on terms of bitter hostility a background material which has legitimately induced both the courts to be very sceptical about the veracity of the prosecution witnesses in the absence of unlying corroboration. As found by both the courts, a confrontation and exchange of violence occurred on June 22, 1964 each party calling the other aggressor. Anyway, several on the prosecution side did receive gunshot wounds, although luckily not fatal, and three among the accused bunch had on their person lathi blow injuries. The trial Judge disbelieved the version of the defence but found the P.Ws. too partisan to pin his faith on, and in consequence acquitted everyone. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iffer-you cannot cancel a finding against guilt. But the appellate Court is untrammeled in its power to re-evaluate the evidence bearing in mind the seriousness of overthrowing an acquittal once recorded. In that view we cannot find any error of law in the High Court reconsidering the probative value of the oral and circumstantial evidence in the case. Nor are we persuaded to think that the appellate Court has failed to observe the built in restraints on exercise of power while upsetting an acquittal. On the other hand, the Court has made the correct approach that only those accused against whom there was additional probative reinforcement could be convicted. So, it found that the injuries on the persons of the three appellants and the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evaluation right and that is about all that has happened in this case. The High Court has given a large margin for reasonable doubt and confirmed the acquittal of a considerable number of the accused. 6. Although the surviving accused who have been convicted are only three, Section 149, and in any case Section 34, I.P.C., will rope in the appellants by way of constructive liability. This Court has, in Sukh Ram v. State of U.P. 1974CriLJ354 held that the acquittal of two out of three named accused does not bar the conviction of the third under Section 302, read with Section 34, if he is shown to have committed the offence with unknown companions. As in that case, here also no possible prejudice can be claimed by the accused-appellants by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
