Supreme Court Hears Appeal Against High Court's Reversal of Acquittal in Bomb Attack Case; Accused Convicted Under Sections 302/149 IPC and Explosive Substances Act Challenge Conviction. Reliability of Eyewitnesses and Scope of Interference in Acquittal Appeals Considered Under Section 379 CrPC and Section 2 of Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 379 CrPC read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, challenging the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal and consequent conviction of the appellants for murder, attempt to murder, unlawful assembly, and offences under the Explosive Substances Act.

The appellants (original accused nos. 1 to 9) sought setting aside of the High Court's judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and restoration of the trial court's order of acquittal.

The High Court allowed the State's appeal against acquittal, held the accused guilty of various offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms; aggrieved, the accused filed the present statutory appeal.

The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal committed the accused to the Sessions Court at Kurnool. The Sessions Court acquitted all accused. On State appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted accused nos. 1 to 9, and dismissed the appeal insofar as accused no. 10's acquittal was concerned.

Whether the High Court erred in law by interfering with the trial court's order of acquittal, which was based on a reasonable view of the evidence. Whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses 8 and 9 was reliable and sufficient to base convictions under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Whether the eyewitness testimony of injured prosecution witnesses 1 to 7 was artificial, too exact, and tutored, thereby undermining the prosecution case. Whether the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 302/149, 307 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act beyond reasonable doubt.

Shri Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellants, argued that the High Court had patently erred in interfering with the trial court's acquittal, which reflected a reasonable view of the evidence, and that the State's appeal ought to have been dismissed. He contended that the conviction under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 149 rested solely on the evidence of PWs 8 and 9, whose evidence was rightly rejected by the trial court due to various infirmities. He submitted that the eyewitness account of injured PWs 1 to 7 was highly artificial, too exact to be believed, and indicated tutored witnesses deposing to a well thought-out version; deep-seated enmity between factions led to false implication. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the High Court and opposed the appeal.

Not mentioned (no final legal principle articulated in the available excerpt)

The High Court reached the conclusion after hearing both the sides that the learned Trial Judge had palpably erred in acquitting the accused and his decision had resulted in grave failure of justice. Shri Lalit submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal as rendered by the learned Trial Judge had reflected a reasonable view of evidence as taken by the Trial Court and the High Court in appeal against acquittal had patently erred in law in interfering with the said reasonable view of the learned Sessions Judge.

On 1.6.1987, a bomb attack occurred on a jeep near Baggi Road on Nandyal-Mahanandi Road, resulting in two deaths and injuries. FIR Crime No.16/87 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 Explosive Substances Act. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal, who committed the accused to the Sessions Court at Kurnool. The Sessions Court acquitted all accused. The State appealed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which reversed the acquittal and convicted accused nos.1 to 9, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms. The present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court under Section 379 CrPC read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 149, 34
• Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 3, 5
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 161, 379
• Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970: 2