9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd appellants 1 and 2. On 17.7.1991, while the deceased, PWs 1 and 2, wife and daughter respectively, were in their kottam, the third parties came to see the site in order to purchase it and proposed to come the next day to settle the bargain. Appellants 1 2 came there at about 6.00 p.m. and questioned the deceased as the why he proposed to sell the said site to others ignoring them. The deceased asserted that he had every right to sell the site to any person of his choice, being its owner. On this, there were exchange of words between the deceased and the appellants 1 and 2. In the meanwhile, appellants 1 and 2 picked up sticks and beat the deceased on his knees. The deceased fell down after receiving injuries. Thereafter, the appellant No. 3 came armed wit crow-bar and beat the deceased three or four times on his head. The incident was witnessed by PWs 1 and 2. After assaulting the deceased, the appellants left the scene of offence with their weapons. PW-3, son of the deceased, had gone for Hamali work. After coming to know about the incident, PW-4, the mother of the deceased, rushed to the scene and PWs 1 and 2 narrated about the incident to her. At about 9.00 p.m., PW-3 came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing related to the deceased were interested and looking to the contradictions and omission in their statements coupled with their conduct, their evidence could not be believed; further the evidence of the Doctor, PW-6, contradicts the evidence of PW-1 in regard to the very over act or assault by the appellants 1 and 2; though several eye-witnesses were available, none of them were examined by the prosecution which was fatal to the prosecution case; the learned Sessions Judge having regard to the infirmities recorded sound reasons for not relying upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the so called eye-witnesses; the High Court was not right and justified in taking a contrary view lightly brushing aside the reasons given by the trial court; while disturbing the order of acquittal, the High Court failed to keep in view the well-settled principles of justice laid down by this Court. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State made submissions supporting the impugned judgment more or less on the reasons given by the High Court in the impugned judgment. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The charge against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at the instance of some others. The learned Sessions Judge has stated in the judgment that no evidentiary value could be given to the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 as to identification of appellant No. 3, as the muslim person who gave a fatal blow to the deceased. It is found in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that several independent persons of the locality witnesses the occurrence but none of them were examined in the court. In the absence of corroboration to the interested evidence of PWs 1 and 2 by independent witnesses, the trial court was of the opinion that it was not safe to place reliance on the testimony of PWs 1 and 2. The trial court yet referred to another infirmity in the prosecution case. The incident was claimed to have taken place at 6.00 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. From the evidence it appears that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station could be covered by 1/4th or one hour depending upon the conveyance and including by walk but the report was given at 10.30 p.m. Thus, there was delay of four hours. PW-4 the mother of the deceased, admitted that the deceased was in the habit of taking drinks after day's work and she came to know about the incident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence the approach of the curt must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of accused has to be kept in mind in coming the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyse and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case. 12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of acquittal or conviction as a court of first appeal has full power to review the evidence to reach its own independent conclusion. However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or merely because one other view is possible, because with the passing of an order of acquittal presumption of inn decree in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened. The High Court would not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar of the accused. Nothing has come in evidence that the appellants were notorious criminals or they were a terror in the village. The trial court took a right view that non-examination of independent witnesses seriously impaired the credibility of the prosecution case. The High Court, in our view, was not right in this regard in accepting the explanation given by PW-7. In relation to he overt acts of appellants 1 and 2, the High Court was again nor correct in ignoring the discrepancy which the trial court pointed out on the basis of conflicting evidence of PWs 1 and 2 on the one hand and that of the doctor on the other. According to the prosecution, the discrepancy was not fatal. The trial court had taken pains scrutinizing the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6 and Exbt. P/1 on this aspect as already stated above. 16. From what is stated above, we are clearly of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in disturbing the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court that too without dislodging the reasons given by the trial court. Assuming one other view was possible, that itself was no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal unless it was shown that the appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
