9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 2003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e witnesses, improbability of identification of the Accused, non-examination of independent witnesses, previous enmity between the Accused and the witnesses, non-production of important prosecution witnesses and improper investigation of the case. On a thorough examination of the entire evidence on record and the judgment of the trial court, we are of the considered view that the judgment of acquittal by the trial court is justified which ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court. The High Court could not have reversed a judgment of acquittal merely because another view is possible. The High Court brushed aside the findings recorded by the trial court relating to certain omissions as being minor and held the omissions should not have been the basis on which the Appellants have been acquitted. The High Court ignored the fact that the presumption of innocence in favour of the Appellants is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. No perversity in the judgment of the trial court in acquitting the Appellants has been demonstrated by the High Court for interfering with the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the informant and Md. Mobin rushed to where the deceased was lying and found that he was hit by the bullets. They started shouting for help. Md. Adil, Md. Ataul Rehman and several others came. They were informed about the incident by the informant. 3. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed Under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code against seven persons out of whom one of the Accused Md. Samad died and Md. Chamru @ Sahadat and Noor Alam absconded. The remaining Accused i.e. the Appellants-herein faced trial for the charges framed Under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. According to PW-9 Bishram Das, who was the investigating officer, the information was received at 7.45 p.m. on 05.01.1984 that 2-3 shots were hurled and one person killed in Saidpur village. After recording S.D. Entry No. 65, he proceeded to the Saidpur village along with other policemen. After reaching the place of the incident, he recorded the statement of Md. Abu Daud and prepared an inquest report. He also seized the blood soaked soil, ash of ghura and a lantern. 4. Post-mortem examination of deceased Jumma was conducted by PW-5 at 8.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Noor Alam. He stated that Md. Jam Alam and Sahadat had guns, Noor Alam had a rifle and rest of the Accused had lathis. PW-6 who is the informant deposed that there was sufficient light cast because of the ghura (fire place), the lantern and the torch which he was carrying. He witnessed the incident from behind the Simal tree which was 15 yards from the place of occurrence. 6. The oral testimonies of PWs- 3, 4 and 6 were examined thoroughly and the trial court was of the opinion that it is not safe to rely on their statements. The trial court held that the evidence relating to identification of the Accused in the available light was not convincing. There is reference to the evidence regarding the lantern in the varanda which was behind the place where the mob was standing and the improbability of their being identified in the light emitted by the lantern. The evidence of PW-6 that he flashed a torch light for identifying the Accused persons was disbelieved as no torch was seized by the police. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court was of the opinion that the eye witnesses could not have identified the Accused. Previous enmity between the Accused on one hand and the informant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the Prosecution. The evidence of interested witnesses was also held reliable by the High Court. The minor errors in recording the time in the police station and the non-examination of J.N. Singh (S.I.) did not prejudice the prosecution's case. By differing with the view taken by the trial court on the above points, the High Court found that the judgment of the trial court is perverse and that there is only one view possible which leads to the guilt of the Accused. On the aforesaid findings, the High Court convicted the Appellants Under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 8. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the acquittal of the Appellants and convicting them for an offence of murder. While holding that there is no limitation placed on the power to review the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor (1934) 36 BOM LR 1185 held: 9. ...the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court. 11. It is relevant to refer to another judgment of this Court in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450 in which the principles to be followed by the appellate courts to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal were crystallised as under: 70. ... 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has very substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have very substantial and compelling reasons to discard the trial court's decision. Very substantial and compelling reasons exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
