9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1839X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26 of Indian Penal Code. The High Court further, confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court insofar as it relates to Accused Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that at about 4:30 pm on 15.01.1994, the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 (including the Appellant) along with Accused Nos. 4 and 5, with the common intention of committing murder of deceased persons, namely Kumari Radhika (aged about 11 years) and Smt. Manjula, as well as to cause grievous hurt to the informant Smt. Honnamma, trespassed into the house of Smt. Honnamma and quarrelled with her in filthy language; the Appellant assaulted the informant with a chopper on her head and hands and caused grievous injuries to her; the Accused No. 2 assaul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quittal was based on settled principles of law as well as on due appreciation of the evidence on record. The judgment of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse, and the view taken by the Trial Court is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of the Trial Court. Per contra, Mr. Joseph Aristotle S., advocate for the State, argued in support of the judgment of the High Court. 4. As mentioned supra, the informant Smt. Honnamma is an injured eye-witness. The first information report details the sequence of events which took place on the date of the incident, i.e., on 15.01.1994. Apart from narrating the incident, it narrates about motive for comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Manjula initially and issued wound certificates (Ex. P-7, Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-8 respectively). PW. 14 (doctor) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Manjula. The doctor (PW. 30) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Radhika. None of the witnesses (except PW. 23) are eye-witnesses; the other witnesses examined are either panch witnesses or police officials. 6. It is not in dispute that the incident had taken place inside the house of Smt. Honnamma (PW. 23), therefore, it is but natural that there was no other eye-witness except PW. 23. Three persons sustained injuries and out of them two persons, namely Kumari Radhika and Smt. Manjula, succumbed to the injuries. The incident has taken place in broad d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of PW. 23 with regard to the overt acts of each of the accused. The acts of each of these Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are compartmentalised, i.e., Accused No. 1 assaulted the complainant with a chopper, whereas Accused No. 2 assaulted Smt. Manjula with a chopper, and Accused No. 3 assaulted Kumari Radhika with a chopper. No allegations are found against the Accused Nos. 4 and 5. No overt acts are found against the Appellant in so far as assault on both the deceased. Except specifying that the Appellant assaulted the informant (PW. 23), no other allegations are found against him. The ingredients of common intention on the part of the Accused to do away with the life of the deceased Smt. Manjula and Kumari Radhika are not forthcoming from the evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if the entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of the ballistic expert etc. the same may be construed as substantial and compelling reasons and the first appellate court may interfere in the order of acquittal. However, if the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the Accused is one of the possible views under the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 2 to 5. Their acquittal as confirmed by the High Court is not questioned by the State before this Court. Thus, the judgment of the High Court acquitting Accused Nos. 2 to 5 has attained finality. Therefore, it is clear that the Trial Court and the High Court have, on facts, not believed the case of the prosecution in respect of the assault by the Accused Nos. 2 and 3. As mentioned supra, the specific case of the prosecution is that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted the deceased Smt. Manjula and Radhika consequent to which they lost their lives. Absolutely no material is found against the Appellant herein to convict him for the offences Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code inasmuch as he had not played any role in the death of the two decea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
