Case: Lekha Yadav Vs. State of Bihar

whether the High Court has kept in view the guidelines laid down by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarups case (AIR 1934 PC 227 ) and later in numerous cases heard and disposed of by this Court. Those guidelines are well known and have already been adverted to.10. Turning to the case in hand, it is obvious that the trial court had committed several errors in appraising the evidence led in the case. It not only ignored but appears even to have misread part of the evidence in certain respects and as a result thereof arrived at conclusions which on a proper appraisal and reading of the evidence would be clearly erroneous and unsustainable. The trial courts approach in evaluating the evidence appears to us to be unfair and irrational. For example, it has condemned the prosecution by imputing to it attempt to falsely implicate Suresh accused. This is how the trial court has dealt with this matter."One of the important circumstances is that one Suresh had accompanied the dead body to the police station. Accused Suresh claims that it was he who had gone with the dead body and at the police station P.W. 12 Sarjug Missir asked him to go away and he returned home. For the first time it was P.W. 9 who introduced the presence of one Suresh at the place of occurrence and she said that he was her sisters son and in paragraph 12 she denied that it was accused Suresh who had accompanied the dead body of her son. P.W. 3 has stated in paragraph 6 that in the village except accused Suresh there is no other of that name and he had stated before the police that Suresh had carried the dead body of Ramautar to Fatwah P. W. 15 has stated in paragraph 8 that he does not know any Suresh except the accused Suresh. According to P.W. 12 his cousin Suresh is aged about nine or ten and it was he who had gone to the police station along with them But P.W. 19 the investigating officer does not say that he examined any Suresh at the police station or any where thereafter. If actually there had been another Suresh, the prosecution could not have failed to produce him just to disprove the claim of accused Suresh that he had gone with the dead body to Fatwah. Having failed to do so and it being admitted by P. Ws. 3 and is that they do not know of any other Suresh, the only natural inference would be that it is this accused Suresh who had accompanied the dead body to Fatuwa and his statement under Section 342, Cr.P. C. that it was at the Thana that P.W. 12 asked him to return home explains as to why he was not examined by the Police. "Now P.W 3, Parmeshwar Gope was tendered for cross-examination. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons it was extracted that on that day no man named Suresh carried the injured person to hospital and that there was no other Suresh in the village except accused Suresh. It was further extracted that the witness had not made a statement before the police that Suresh and others carried Ramautar to Fatwah and that when Ramautar was lifted and was being carried, there was none else besides the witnesses. This statement was recorded on September 21, 1966. Gaya Devi, P.W. 9 examined on September 26, 1966 denied in cross-examination that accused Suresh had gone to the hospital with her son and that it was not a fact that her sisters son Suresh had not come there. She added that her sisters son Suresh had actually come to her place one day before. P.W. 12, Sarjug Mishra in cross-examination stated that in addition to the witnesses his Mausera brother Suresh had come there after the occurrence. This statement was recorded on September 27, 1966. Jagdish Yadav, P. W. 15 in his cross-examination stated that accused Suresh was not his brother by village relation and that he did not know any other Suresh except this one. Suresh accused was examined in the court of Committing Magistrate on March 4, 1966. In his examination as an accused in that court he gave his age to be 14 years and merely denied the prosecution allegations as false, adding that he had not committed the offence. He did not say anything else, in the court of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, he was examined as an accused on October 4, 1966 when he gave his age as 18 years and after denying all the allegations, when he was asked generally if he had anything more to say, he replied:"People were carrying the dead body of Ramautar in the night by the west of my house. I went there and accompanied them up to P. S. Sarjug sent me back from there."When asked if he would cite (defence) witness, he replied in the negative. Now on the basis of this material, in our opinion, it is somewhat surprising for the trial court to have observed that the prosecution could have produced Suresh, the cousin of P. W. 12, to disprove the claim of the accused. This claim was not made by the accused Suresh in the committing court. It was only made in clear teens at the trial after the prosecution evidence had concluded. The trial court was, therefore, not justified in concluding on this basis that there was any attempt on the part of the prosecution to falsely implicate innocent persons. It is inconceivable that Suresh accused could have dared, as claimed, in the circumstances of this case, to accompany the dead body upto the police station. Bearing in mind the feelings of hostility between the two groups, the presence of Suresh accused amongst those carrying the dead body to the hospital seems to be a highly unrealistic suggestion which should have been rejected by the trial court without any serious notice.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. The legal position is so well settled that we consider it unnecessary to deal with it at great length. It has been reiterated by this Court in innumerable cases, a large number of which are reported in the law reports. To put in a nutshell, once again, the High Court has full power on appeal from acquittal to appraise the evidence for itself just as it is empowered to do on appeal against conviction. The statute, as has repeatedly been said, creates no distinction between the two kinds of appeals. All that the High Court is expected to do in appeals against orders of acquittal, is, that it should bear in mind that there is an initial presumption in favour of innocence of an accused person and that the trial court having acquitted him, this initial presumption should be considered to have been further strengthened to some extent, but certainly not weakened, as a result of the trial courts conclusion. The correctness or otherwise of the conclusions of the trial court, it is true, is the subject of the appeal and is, therefore, open to examination by the High Court. But while appraising the evidence, the High Court should not ignore the importance of the opinion of the trial court which has to be dislodged before reversing the order under appeal. This, in our opinion, is the broad approach required of the High Court when hearing appeals against orders of acquittal.9. This Court is not, as a general rule, expected to examine the entire evidence for itself under Art. 136 of the Constitution in cases where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused persons. This Court only examines so much of the evidence as is necessary for the purpose of determining whether the High Court has kept in view the guidelines laid down by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarups case (AIR 1934 PC 227  ) and later in numerous cases heard and disposed of by this Court. Those guidelines are well known and have already been adverted to.10. Turning to the case in hand, it is obvious that the trial court had committed several errors in appraising the evidence led in the case. It not only ignored but appears even to have misread part of the evidence in certain respects and as a result thereof arrived at conclusions which on a proper appraisal and reading of the evidence would be clearly erroneous and unsustainable. The trial courts approach in evaluating the evidence appears to us to be unfair and irrational. For example, it has condemned the prosecution by imputing to it attempt to falsely implicate SureshP.W 3, Parmeshwar Gope was tendered forion on behalf of the accused persons it was extracted that on that day no man named Suresh carried the injured person to hospital and that there was no other Suresh in the village except accused Suresh. It was further extracted that the witness had not made a statement before the police that Suresh and others carried Ramautar to Fatwah and that when Ramautar was lifted and was being carried, there was none else besides the witnesses. This statement was recorded on September 21, 1966. Gaya Devi, P.W. 9 examined on September 26, 1966 denied inthat accused Suresh had gone to the hospital with her son and that it was not a fact that her sisters son Suresh had not come there. She added that her sisters son Suresh had actually come to her place one day before. P.W. 12, Sarjug Mishra instated that in addition to the witnesses his Mausera brother Suresh had come there after the occurrence. This statement was recorded on September 27, 1966. Jagdish Yadav, P. W. 15 in hisstated that accused Suresh was not his brother by village relation and that he did not know any other Suresh except this one. Suresh accused was examined in the court of Committing Magistrate on March 4, 1966. In his examination as an accused in that court he gave his age to be 14 years and merely denied the prosecution allegations as false, adding that he had not committed the offence. He did not say anything else, in the court of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, he was examined as an accused on October 4, 1966 when he gave his age as 18 years and after denying all the allegations, when he was asked generally if he had anything more to say, hewere carrying the dead body of Ramautar in the night by the west of my house. I went there and accompanied them up to P. S. Sarjug sent me back fromasked if he would cite (defence) witness, he replied in the negative. Now on the basis of this material, in our opinion, it is somewhat surprising for the trial court to have observed that the prosecution could have produced Suresh, the cousin of P. W. 12, to disprove the claim of the accused. This claim was not made by the accused Suresh in the committing court. It was only made in clear teens at the trial after the prosecution evidence had concluded. The trial court was, therefore, not justified in concluding on this basis that there was any attempt on the part of the prosecution to falsely implicate innocent persons. It is inconceivable that Suresh accused could have dared, as claimed, in the circumstances of this case, to accompany the dead body upto the police station. Bearing in mind the feelings of hostility between the two groups, the presence of Suresh accused amongst those carrying the dead body to the hospital seems to be a highly unrealistic suggestion which should have been rejected by the trial court without any serious notice.