minal Appeal No 162 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 3 1967 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No 40 of 1965
840 E C Agrawala for the appellants
B P Jha for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna setting aside the acquittal of the appellants and convicting them under sections 379149 IPC as well as under section 143 IPC The appellants were prosecuted before the Munsiff Magistrate 1st Class Arrah for dishonestly cutting and removing the paddy crop in plots Nos 340 and 346 pertaining to khata No 82 in village Ibrahim Nagar District Shahbad
The complainant s case is that those lands belonged to him and the appellants unlawfully trespassed into that property on November 19 1961 and harvested the rice crop
The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge
The learned trial magistrate held the appellants guilty and convicted them as mentioned earlier
In appeal the learned District Judge Shahbad acquitted the appellants
He felt unable to rely on the prosecution case for three different reasons
Firstly he came to the conclusion that the witnesses who spoke about the occurrence are all interested witnesses and it is unsafe to place reliance on their testimony
He secondly came to the conclusion that there was considerablE delay in filing the complaint and the delay in question has not been explained by the prosecution and that circumstance throws doubt on the prosecution case
Lastly he held that the non examination of the police inspector who is said to have come to the place of occurrence at the time of the occurrence and seen some of the appellants  harvesting the crop casts further doubt on the prosecution case
The High Court differing from the 1st appellate court held that there was no delay in filing the complaint nor was the non examination of the police inspector a circumstance that went against the prosecution
It did not deal with the finding of the 1st appellate court that it is unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 as they were interested witnesses
It is true that the powers of the High Court in considering the evidence on record in appeals under section 417 Cr
PC are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but that court at the same time should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of accused persons which presumption is not weakened by their acquittal
It must also bear in mind the fact that the appellate judge had found them not guilty
Unless the conclusions reached by him are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or that his decision is likely to result in grave injustice the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with his conclusions
If two 841 reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basic of the evidence on record then the view in support of the acquittal of the accused should be preferred
The fact that the High Court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence on record is not sufficient to interfere with the order of acquittal
The learned appellate judge has come to the conclusion that PWs 1 to 4 are interested witnesses and it is unsafe to place reliance on their testimony
It is established in evidence that PWs 1 to 3 are interested witnesses
They are the enemies of the appellants
This aspect of the case was not considered by the High Court at all
The occurrence Is said to have taken place on November 19 1961 but the complaint in respect of the same was filed on November 27 1961
The explanation given by the complainant for this inordinate delay was that he laid information about the occurrence before the police on the date of the occurrence itself he was
expecting the police to take up the investigation as the police did not take up the investigation he filed the complaint on 27th November 1961
This explanation has been rejected by the 1st appellate court
The complaint said to have been filed by the complainant has not been summoned nor proved
No satisfactory proof of any such complaint has been adduced before the court
If a complaint tinder section 154 had been filed the same would have been registered and a final report under section 173 submitted
None of those documents have been summoned much less proved
Curiously enough the learned judge of the High Court says that if the learned Sessions Judge had looked into the diary of the magistrate he would have found reference to the complaint filed by the complainant
In this Court we requested the Counsel for the State to look into the original records and inform us whether there is any reference to a complaint filed by the complainant
After examining the records he told us that there is no such reference
We do not know how the learned judge formed the impression that there was some reference in some record about the information laid before the police
In fact in this Court Counsel for the State told us that what had happened was that before the occurrence the com plainant appears to have filed an application before the police mentioning that there was an apprehension of breach of peace
The delay of about 8 days in filing the complaint in a case of this nature throws a great deal of doubt on the prosecution story
It was the duty of the prosecution to explain the delay satisfactorily
Failure of the prosecution to do so undoubtedly is a circumstance of considerable importance
According to the complainant as the appellants were reaping the crop the Police Inspector happened to come there and that he 842 had seen some of the appellants harvesting the crop
If that be so the Inspector of Police would have been an extremely important witness
His evidence would have been useful in determining the guilt of the accused
He is a disinterested person
No explanation was given for not examining him
Strangely enough the learned Judge of the High Court opined that there was no purpose in examining the inspector when he had failed to investigate the complaint made before him
As seen earlier the alleged complaint appears to be an imaginary one
Therefore the inference that the inspector of police was guilty of dereliction of duty was unwarranted
In view of our above conclusion it is unnecessary for us to consider the question of law canvassed by Mr E C A agarwal learned Counsel for the appellant
But as the same has been argued we shall go into it
The appeal before the High Court was brought after obtaining special leave under sub section
3 of section 417 Cr
It appears that during the pendency of the appeal the complainant died
It was contended before the High Court and that contention was repeated before us that the appeal abated in view of the death of the complainant
This contention was rejected by the High Court
In support of that contention Counsel for the appellant relied on two decisions one of Allahabad High Court in Nehal Ahmad vs Ramji1 and the other of Madras High Court in Thothan and anr
vs Murugan and ors2 The first decision has no application to the facts of the present case
That was an appeal under section 476 B of the Cr
It is true that the Madras decision was rendered in an appeal under section 4173 of the Cr
In our opinion the learned single judge of the Madras High Court erred in thinking that the decision of the Allahabad High Court lent any support to his conclusion that an appeal filed under section 4173 Cr
PC abates on the death of the complainant
The question of abatement of criminal appeals is dealt with by section 431 of Criminal Procedure Code
That section reads Every appeal under section 41 1 A sub section 1  or section 417 shall finally abate on the death of the accused and every other appeal under this Chapter except an appeal from a sentence of fine shall abate on the death of the appel lant
 From this section it is clear that an appeal under section 417 can only abate on the death of the accused and not otherwise
Once an appeal against an acquittal is entertained by the High Court it becomes the duty of the High Court to decide the same irrespective of the fact the appellant either does not choose to prosecute it 1 AIR 1925 All
2 AIR 1958 Mad 624
843 or unable to prosecute it for one reason or the other
The argument that while introducing sub section
3 into section 417 Cr
PC the Parliament overlooked the provisions
contained in section 43 1 does not deserve consideration
The language of section 431 is plain and unambiguous
Therefore no question of interpretation of that provision arises
In view of our finding on the merits of the case we allow this appeal set aside the judgment of the learned single judge of the High Court and restore that of the Sessions Judge
The appellants on bail
Their bail bonds do stand cancelled
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants were prosecuted for dishonestly cutting and removing the paddy crop of the complainant
The complaint was filed 8 days after the incident
The trial court convicted them
The appellate court acquitted them on the grounds
 1 that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable 2 that there was considerable delay in filing the comPlaint for which no explanation was given and 3 the Inspector of Police who was alleged to have been an eye witness of the occurrence was not examined
The complainant filed an appeal to the High Court under s4173 Cr
During the pendency of the appeal the complainant died
The High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants
In appeal to this Court HELD  i The question of abatement of criminal appeals is dealt with by s431 Cr PC and according to that section an appeal under s417 can only abate on the death of the accused and not otherwise
Therefore once the appeal against acquittal is entertained by the High Court it becomes its duty to decide it on merits even though the com plainant died
842 G H Thothan vs Murugan AIR 1958 Mad 624 overruled
ii Unless the conclusion that the accused were not guilty reached by the first appellate court was palpably wrong or was based on an erroneous view of the law or that the decision was likely to result in grave injustice the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with that conclusion
If two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record then the view in support of the acquittal of the accused should be preferred
840 H 841 A iii In the present case the prosecution witnesses were obviously  interested witnesses being the enemies of the accused and the explanations given by the complainant for the delay in filing the complaint and the non examination of the Inspector of Police were false therefore the High Court erred in interfering with the order of acquittal
841 B C