Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had reversed the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, and convicted the appellants for offences of rioting and murder. Originally, 26 persons, including the 10 appellants, were arraigned before the Sessions Judge for rioting, two murders, and other allied offences. The trial ended in an acquittal of all accused. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed an application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court granted leave only against the 10 appellants, allowed the appeal, set aside their acquittal, and convicted and sentenced each of them under Sections 148, 325/149, and 302/149 (on one count) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prosecution case was that on July 2, 1981, at about 10 A.M., while Gajadhar (P.W.3) and his family were cultivating their land, the accused came there variously armed with rifles, lathis, spears, and pharsas. The family tried to flee towards their village but were caught near the house of Khoobchand (P.W.4). Gajadhar was beaten, and when his son Lakhanlal came to his rescue, appellant Sitaram assaulted him on the head with a spear, while others assaulted him with iron rods. Khoobchand also intervened and was assaulted. It was further alleged that when Santkumar, another son, came towards the road, appellants Narayan Singh and Niranjan Singh fired at him. Santkumar and Lakhanlal later died in the hospital. The prosecution relied principally on the ocular evidence of Gajadhar (P.W.3), Khoobchand (P.W.4), Raj Kumari Bai (P.W.5), and Kusumbai (P.W.6), and a dying declaration of Santkumar. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the medical evidence completely belied the ocular version, particularly regarding the nature of injuries, and that the evidence about the murder of Santkumar and the dying declaration was unsatisfactory. The High Court concurred with the trial court's findings regarding the murder of Santkumar and the dying declaration but held that the trial court's finding that medical evidence did not fit with eyewitness evidence was improper. The High Court found that the eyewitnesses clearly established rioting armed with deadly weapons and that in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the appellants committed the murder of Lakhanlal and caused grievous hurt to P.Ws. 3 and 4. The Supreme Court carefully considered the medical evidence and the evidence of eyewitnesses. It noted that the prosecution case was that the deceased and injured were assaulted with sharp cutting weapons. However, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination testified that the deceased Lakhanlal had no injury which could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon, and in fact had sustained only one injury which could be caused by a blunt weapon. Similar inconsistencies existed in the medical evidence regarding the injured witnesses. The Supreme Court held that if the trial court, on the basis of these objective medical findings, found it unsafe to rely on the ocular version, that finding could not be said to be against the weight of evidence or perverse so as to justify the High Court setting it aside. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. Since the appellants were on bail, they were discharged from their bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope of High Court's Power - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 378 and 379; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 325/149, 302/149 - The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellants for rioting and murder; the Supreme Court examined whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or against the weight of evidence - Held that when the trial court's finding based on objective medical evidence is not perverse, the High Court cannot set aside the acquittal; the appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. B) Evidence - Reliability of Ocular Evidence - Conflict with Medical Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 148, 325/149, 302/149 - The prosecution case alleged assault with sharp cutting weapons, but the postmortem report showed the deceased Lakhanlal had no injury caused by a sharp cutting weapon and sustained only one blunt weapon injury; similar inconsistency existed for injured witnesses - Held that the trial court was justified in finding the ocular version unreliable, and the High Court erred in reversing that finding; evidence of eyewitnesses could not be accepted.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal when medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding use of sharp cutting weapons; whether the ocular evidence was reliable to establish guilt for murder and grievous hurt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside; appellants acquitted of all charges levelled against them; since appellants were on bail, discharged from their respective bail bonds.
Law Points
- An appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or against the weight of evidence
- Medical evidence contradicting ocular evidence regarding weapons used renders ocular testimony unreliable
- Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Sections 148
- 149
- 325
- 302 Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Sections 378 and 379 Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
