Criminal Appeal No 225 of 1978
From the Judgment and order dated 1941978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1106 of 1974
AN Mulla Mrs Pravawati Mrs Urmila Kapur and Ms section Janani for the Appellants
RS Sodhi for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI J
After hearing Shri AN Mulla Sr
Advocate for appellants and Shri RS Sodhi Counsel appear ing on behalf of the respondent and having carefully exam ined all aspects of the case in the light of the submissions made at the Bar we have unhesitatingly come to the conclu sion that this appeal has to be allowed
749 The four appellants before us Tota Singh Dauli Singh Mithu Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were tried by the Court of Sessions Faridkot on charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
After detailed consideration of the entire evidence adduced in the case the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated May 30 1974 acquitted the appellants of all the charges laid against them
Against the said decision of the Sessions Judge the State of Punjab preferred Criminal Appeal No 1106 of 1974 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated April 9 1978 allowed the State s appeal set aside the order of the Sessions acquitting the appellants and convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as well as under Section 323 1PC read with Section 34 IPC
On the first count all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and on the second account they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each with a further direction that the substantive sentence of imprisonment in respect of all the appellants shall run concurrently
We do not propose to set out in extenso the facts of the case nor to discuss in detail the oral and documentary evidence adduced
We say this for the reason that we are fully satisfied that the approach made by the High Court to a consideration of the appeal was wholly vitiated by a manifest illegality inasmuch as the High Court has acted in total disregard of the principles repeatedly laid down by this Court delineating the restricted grounds on which alone interference may be made by a Court of appeal with an order of acquittal passed by a lower Court
The occurrence that led to the prosecution took place on July 19 1973 at about 4 PM in village Bishmandi Police Station Jaitu in District Faridkot
The case of the prosecu tion is that the deceased Gurdev Singh accompained by Ajmer Singh PW 2 and Malkiat Singh PW 6 was going from the house of the Ajmer Singh to the house of the deceased on that fateful day
While they were approaching the house of one Moda Singh Jat the four appellants all carrying a gandasa each suddenly besieged them from behind the Cheli anwali Street raising a lalkara proclaiming that they were going to take their revenge for outraging the modesty of Malkiat Kaur and they attacked the deacased as well as Ajmer Singh and Malkiat Singh by inflicting gandasa blows on them
It was alleged that this was a preplanned and concerted attack made by the appellants as a reappraisal for an inci dent of alleged rape of one Malkiagt Kaur by Ajmer Singh 750 PW 2 Gurdev Singh deceased is said to have fallen down on the spot as a result of the blows inflicted on him and PWs 2 and 6 are said to have suffered simple injuries due to the attack with gandasa
According to the prosecution version on hearing the cries for help raised by PW 2 and PW 6 Kaur Singh son of deceased Gurdev Singh came to the place of occurrence and thereupon all the four appellants ran away from the spot leaving PW 6 near Gurdev Singh who was lying on the ground in an injured condition
PW 2 is said to have gone to the Sarpanch and the Panch of the village and informed them about the incident
Thereafter he returned to the scene of occurrence and himself along with PW 6 are said to have put Gurdev Singh on a bullock cart and got him admitted in the injured condition in the hospi tal
PW2 and PW6 were also admitted in the same hospi tal
Gurdev Singh was subsequently transferred to the Chris tan Medical College at Ludhiana where he succumbed to his injuries on July 30 1973
The learned Sessions Judge after a careful analysis of all the facts and circumstances as disclosed by the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the testimo ny of Ajmer Singh PW 2 and Malkiat Singh PW 6 who were examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses to prove the occurrence could not be safely accepted and acted upon as true
The trial Judge set out in his judgment detailed and cogent grounds for arriving at the said conclusion
In his opinion there was no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in reporting the crime to the police and there was also no adequate proof of any motive
The learned Sessions Judge rejected the theory put forward by the prosecu tion that it was a pre planned attack made by the appellants with a view to avenge the alleged molestation of Malkiat Kaur by Ajmer Singh PW 2 by pointing out that if such had been really the case the target of attack by the appellants would have been Ajmer Singh to whom only simple injuries were caused and not Gurdev Singh who had nothing to do with the alleged incident of molestation
The learned Sessions Judge was inclined to accept the defence version that the appellants being siris  had some trouble with PW 2 and PW 6 about the apportionment of batai  and this might have led to their false implication in the case
In the absence of any independent corroboration of the testimony given by the two alleged eye witnesses PW 2 and PW 6 the learned Sessions Judge who had seen them giving evidence in the box was not impressed by their evidence specially having regard to the fact that both of them had been appear ing as prosecution witnesses in a large number of police cases
The testimony of PW 2 and PW 6 having been found to be not worthy of belief the 751 learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants on both the charges levelled against them
The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW 2 and PW 6 were either unreasonable or perverse
What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore liable to be characterised as perverse
Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its con sideration of the evidence is erroneous
Tested in the light of the above principles it must be held that the interference made in the present case by the High Court with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge was wholly unwarranted
We accordingly allow this appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants of all the charges framed against them
MLA Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants were tried by the Court of Sessions on charges under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and section 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC and the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants or  all the charges laid against them on the grounds i that there was no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in reporting the crime to the police ii that there was also no adequate proof of any motive iii that it was not a pre planned attack and iv that the testimony of PW 2 and PW 6 who were exam ined as eye witnesses to prove the occurrence could not be safely accepted and acted upon as true
In the absence or  any independent corroboration or  the testimony given by them since they had also been appearing as prosecution witnesses in a large number of police cases
The High Court however in appeal by the respondent State made an independent reappraisal of the evidence and set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation it was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the Sessions Judge
Allowing the appeal by the appellants this Court HELD 1
The approach made by the High Court to a con sideration of the appeal was wholly vitiated by a manifest illegality inasmuch as the High Court has acted in total disregard of the principles repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court delineating the restricted grounds on which alone interference may be made by a court of appeal with an order of acquittal passed by a lower Court
751D The High Court in the instant case has not found that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW 2 and 748 PW 6 were either unreasonable or perverse
751B 21 The mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal
751C 22 The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circum scribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore liable to be characterised as perverse
751D E 3
Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous
751E