NAGESHWAR SHRI KRISHNA CHOUBE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

NAGESHWAR SHRI KRISHNA CHOUBE

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA September 19, 1972

[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA ANO K. R. KHANr;A, JJ.J

Indian Penal Cocle (Act 45 of 1860) s. 304 A-Rash and negligent clriving--Available 111aterial cvide11ce not produr.ed by prosecu1ion-Reliance on nature of c.ccident by Courts--Propriety-Rejection by Collrts of defence e1·ide11ce-l1npropriety of use of intetnperate language by Courts. The appellant was driving bus which mounted the footpath, dashed against an electric pole, and person, who was near the electric pole, was knocked down dead as result of the pole falling on him. Four other persons were injured by the bus hitting them. Three of these persons were cxamimd as prosecution witnesses, but the evidence on behalf of the pro-secution did not throw any right on the prec.se circumstances in which the bus happened to moµht the footpath. According to the appellant, be was driving the bus at moderate speed when suddenly the fourth of the injured persons, \Vho \'/as not examined as witness, came running in his attooipt to cross the rood. The appellant took turn to avoid him and also applied his brakes, but the accident happened because of circumstances beyond his control. Ho also examined one witness on his behalf who generally supported his version. The trial court passed strictures on the defence witness and convicted the appellant under s. 304A l.P.C. On appeal, the High Court, while emphasising on the perfunctory character of the investigation, also passed strong strictures against the defence wit· ness and confirmed the conviction of the appellant, on the grounds, that :he electric pole would not have fallen unless the bus was going at high speed when it hit the pole, that assuming the pedestrian came running across the road the appellant was in position to sec him and could have come to complete stop if he was reasonably careful, and that the appel-lant must have continued to run the bus at 'full speed expecting the pedes-trian to stop. The High Court wanted to examine the injured pedestrian as Court witness, but did not do as the defence objected.

Allowing the appeal to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution,

HELD : (I) The High Court should have examined the court witnc.•. The failure to do so on the ground that the defence objected to such e.amination was not proper approach, because, parties cannot control the Court's discretion to h>vc any additional evidence considered by it to .be nece"!ary in the int?rcsts of justice. Justice ~ould fail not only by Ulljust conviction of the rnnoccnt but also by acquittal of the guiltv for unjustified failure to produce available evidence. [387G-H] ·

(2) The fact that thi• was not the first \ime when investigation iA • case like this had been uttterly perfunctory was no ground for cOtl-•icting the accused. [386G-H]

(3) Asiuming that tjle High Court was right that the road at the time was more .than normolly crowded it was still question for consideration ai to· from how much diotance the appellant would have been able to see pedestrian who was ru"ning to the road, an aspect which was not ad-verted to by the High Court. [386B-F]

( 4) The jud&ffiCnt of the trial Court and of the High Court proceed principally on assumptions not fully supportab~e on the material o~ the record. Merely because the nature of the acctdent, prima facle req-uires an explan2.tion from the driver wou1d not be sufficient to sustain. his conviction, if the truth of his explanation which was not liable to rej-ection outright could have been appropriately judged if the evidence left out by the prosecution had been produced. [387 A-El

(5) Evidence which was material, such as the evidence of the pedestrian and the passengers in the bus had not been collected by the investigating agency, and the reasons given for not examining the injured pedestrian arc wholly unconvincing. The evidence actually produced, has not established the appellant's guilt beyond re,,.,onahle doubt. [337C-FJ

(6) The Investigating Officer has acted without the requisite sense oi responsibility essential ior fair and just investigation into serious accidents like the present. He had not taken photographs of the pos-ition of the vehicle, the electric pole. and the position of the victim, but had produced, instead, most unsatisfactory rough sketch. There was co evidence of rekvant factors such as the height of the kerb, the state of traffic on the road, the condition of the brakes. and of the probable speed of the bus which could have been ascertained by measuring the tyre marks on the road. [3830-H; 386A-C]

(7) Assuming the testimony of the defence witness did not impress th(' c011rt~ belo"v they should have expressed their opinion in temperate bnguage with judicial restraint. [3880]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cr. A. No. 209 Of 1969.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 14, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1968.

H. R. Pardivala, D. N. Mishra and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.

S. K. Dho/akia and B. D. Sharma, for the responde!lt.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DuA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave under Art. J 36 of the Constitution from the judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding on appeal the appellant's conviction by the Presidency Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Bombay under s. 304A, l.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default further, rigorous imprisonment for four months.

According to the presecution, on July 2, 1967, at about 4.15 p.m. the appellant was driving B.R.S.T. motor bus bearing no. BHQ 1019 along the southern side of Tilak Road from east to west. When the bus suddenly mounted the southern footpath and dashed against an electric pole feiling it fell[0]down, the bus stop-ped. person .who was near the electric pole was knocked dcwn dead as result of the electric pole falling on· him. His right hand was severed, his head crushed with the brain matter sticking

on to the wall near the electric pole. It was double decker bus. One Harbansing Ramsingh (called bhaiya) also sustained injuries as result of having been hit by the bus.

According to the appellant, he was driving the bus at mo-derate speed from east to west along the southern side of Tilak Road when suddenly bhaiya, in his attempt to cross the road, came m:ar the right wheel of the bus. He was noticed by the ap-pellant when he was about 3 ft. away from the front right portion of the bus. In order to avoid him the appellant applied his brakes and took tum to the left, thereby mounting the southern foot-path and it was in these circumstances that he struck against the electric pole. The accident, according to his plea, occurred be-c cause of circwnstances beyond his control. The Presidency Magistrate did not believe the defence version and observed; "According to the accused he was going at speed as if he was approaching bus stop. If that were so and if Harbansing was crossing the road from north to 0 south as alleged by the defence and if the accused ap-plied his brakes after seeing the bhaiya, then it is hard to see how the bus did not stop there and then. The bi.; however went on to the southern footpath and das-hed against the electric pole with such force that it was uprooted. The fact that the accused was not able to halt the bus there and then show that the bus was in good speed. The accused could not control its speed in time. If therefore hold that the pros~ution has esta-blished its case against the accused."On this reasoning, finding the accused guilty, the trial court con-victed and sentenced him, as already noticed. ,,1.t may be pointed out that the accused was also charged under~~- 273 and 338, I.P.C. but the court did not consider it proper to impose separate icntcnccs under these sections ..

On appeul to the High Couft''thc learned Chief Justice, after considering the arguments urged before him. observed that in the circumstances of the case it was impossible that Harbansing could come within 3 ft. of tlie bus in question before the accused first saw him. Even after the accused had realised the dnneer he could have, according to the learned Chief Justice, avoided climbing on to the footpath and injuring the pedestrians there, after knock-ing down the electric pole, had it not been for the speed of the bus which prevented him from controlling the vehicle. The learned Chief Justice considered it unimaginable that the electric pole would be completely uprooted unless the bus was in consider-_ ..,ble speed when it hit the pole, the heavy nature of the vehicle notwithstanding. This by itself, the High Court observed, was 7-cL498$@CT /7J

one of the factors which establish the rashness and negligence of

the accused. The High Court opined that it must have taken quite some time for the bhaiya to cross 35 ft. of the road (the road was stated to be 35 ft. wide) even though he was running. If,· therefore, the man stated running from the northern end of the road the vehicle must have been at least 50 or 60 ft. away from the point of impact. The driver of the bus, had he been reasonably careful, could have brought the bus to complete stop m distance of about 50 or 60 ft. and avoided the collusion oven assuming the bhaiya was running fast. This is another factor which, according to the learned Chief Justice, reftected the negli-gence on the part of the accused person. The defence witness (K. G. Joshi) deposed that the accused had not blown any horn. This ver:ion ~!so, in the opinion, of the High Court, lent some 'upport to ti;e negligence on the part of the accused. The High •Court in the end observed :

"Though no doubt the l:urden of proof in criminal trial is upon the prosecution, the facts pertaining to the accident in the present case are so eloquent and glaring that they speak for themselves. Even assuming that !Jarbansing came running from the north to the south across the road a·> the accused says, he was in position to have se~n him start running and to have brought his bus under control within sufficient time to avoid the accident but he was in hurry to reach his destination within time and so the accused continued to run his bus at the same speed full well knowing that if the pedestrain contir~ued to cross the road he would do so at his peril and therefore expecting him to stop. It is that attitude of mind which has led to this acci-d~nt and amounts to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Even taking into account the explana-tion which the accused has given, I am unable to sec how the accused cannot be held to have driven rashly or negligently."

The High Court was on the whole satisfied upon the evidence that the conviction was justified.

In this· Court Shri Pardiwala has, in an elaborate argument. taken us through the entire record of the case and has submitted that in case of rash and negligent driving the prosecution has ta prove by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the accused wa1 rash and negligent and the mere fact that the accident has taken place in manner which does not seem to be normal is not by itself sufficient to cast on the accused person the onu; of estab-.fohing his in1vxc:''·"-'·

In cases of road accidents by fast moving vehicles it is ordi-narily diflicult to find witnesses who would be in position t•1 affirm positively the sequence of vital vents during the few mo-ments immediately preceding the actual accident, from which its true cause can be ascertained. When accidents take place on the road, people using the roaJ or who may happen to be in close vicinily would normally be busy in their own pre-occupations and in th~ normal course their attention would be attracted only hy the noise or the disturbance cau;;cd by the actual impact result-ing from the accident itself. It is only then that they would look towaras the direction of the noise and see what had happened. It is seldom-and it is only matter of coincidence-that person may already be looking in the direction of the accident and may for that reason be in position to see and later describe the se-quence of events in which the accident occurred. At times it may also happen that after casually witnessi11g the occurrence those persons may feel disinclined to take any further interest in the matter, whatever be the reason for this disindination. If. however, they do feel interested in going to the spot in their () curiosity to know something more then what they may happen to see there, would lead them to form some opinion or impression as to what in all likelihood must have led to the accident. Evi-dence of such persons, therefore, requires close scrutiny for find-ing out what they actually saw and what may ,be the result of their imaginative inference. Apart from the eye-witnesses, the only person who can be considered to be truly capable of satisfac-torily explaining as to the circumstances leading to accidents like the present is the driver himself or in certain circumstances to some extent the person who is injured. In the present case the person who died in the a,ccident is obviously not available for giving evidence. The bhaiya (Harbansing) has also not been produced as witness. Indeed, failure to produce him in this case has been the principal ground of attack by Shri Pardiwala and he has questioned the bona fides and the fairness of the prose· cution as also the trustworthiness of the vetsion given by the other witnesses.

Six witnesses have been produced by the prosecution in sup-port of its case. We are going into that evidence which is nor-maUy not done in appeals unc!~r Art. 136 of the Constitution be-cause in this case it was urged by Shri Pardiwala that there is abs,olutely no evidence showing rashness or negligence on the part of the appellant and that the evidence \1ith regard to the exact position in which the bus was actually found vis-a-vi~- the dead body, soon after the accident, is also not trustworthy. In deed, according. to the learned counsel, both the trial court am!

the High Court have been influenced more by the tragic conse-quences resulting from the accident than the evidence on the · record.

P.W. 5 Kisan Appa Kasbe is the ma,n who is said to have

made. the report to tlle police about this accident. He appeared in court on March 20, 1968 and stated that on July 2, 1967 at 3.45 p.m. white walking along the northern footpath from east to west towards Kodabad Circle he heard noise of impact of a: vehicle and turning that side he saw B.E.S.T. bus stationary on ihe southern footpath and bent electric pole. After pr<?ceeding in that direction he saw dead body under electric pole whose hand was broken, and was lying near the pole. His skull was also broken and brain matter was visible. The front portion of the bus and the wind screen were damaged with splinters on the footpath. He saw four injured persons. Those injured persons . were taken to the hospital in single decker bus. He was con-tacted by the police at 8.30 p.m. on the same day at his residence where his statement was recorded. This statement has been des-cribed by M. S. Patil, S.I. (P.W. 6) as first information report. Quite plainly that statement could not ~ the F.l.R. for the simple reason that investigation had admittedly started on receipt of information at 4.40 p.m. as sworn by P .W. 6. The statement made by P.W. 5 at 8.30 p.m. at his residence would accordingly fall under~. 161, Cr, P.C. and could only be utilised as provided by s. 162, Cr. P.C. for contradicting him. OCthe four inj11red persons mentioned by P.W. 5 three have appeared in court, namely, Shriman Yadav (P.W. 2), Mohan Rama (P.W .. 3} and Bhondibai Babu (P.W. 4). P.W. 2 merely says that while he and Mohan Rama (P.W. 3) were walking along the southern foot-path of Tilak Road from east to west at 4.30 p.m. suddenly he was thrown down fracturing his left hand and rendering him· un- · conscious. He has not said anything · more. Mohan· Rama ( P.W. 3) has deposed that he and Shriman Yada~ were walking · along the southern footpath when B.E.S.T. bus came from be-hind and struck Shriman Yadav, thereby throwing him down. Mohan Rama also fell down as result of Shriman's impact. Mohan Rama then took Shriman, who was µnconscious, tq the hospital, where he was admitted as an indoor patient. Mohan Rama was, however, treated and allowed to go· home. Mohan llama had not seen the bus mounting the footpath. He only saw the electric pole falling on the deceased. According to him, the front left wheel of the bus was on the footpath and the front right wheel was touching its kerb. The electric pole was not uprooted but was cut at the base. Quite obviously, the evidence of these two witnesses does not throw any helpful light on the precise cir-cumstances in. which the bus happened to mount the footpath. Dhondibai Babu (P.W. 4) has stated ·thai he was walking along

~·~~-';"

t~c southern footpath east.to wes_t at about 4 p.m. when suddenly B.E.S.T. bus knocked him down unconscious. According to him, the left front portion of the bus struck him. He has said nothing more. If he became unconscious, it is doubtful if he could reliably state that the left front portion of the bus had . struck him. The statement of Kisan Appa Kasbe (P.W. 5) has ll -already been adverted to. But he too, as one would normally expect witness to such accidents, only looked in the direction of the accident, when his attention was attracted as result of noise of the impact of the bus in question. There is thus no evidence as to what compelled the driver to turn left which caused the bus to mount the footpath and .. strike against the electric pole, thereby causing injuries to the several persons, one of whom died at the spot. Manohar Sadashiv, S.I., appearing as P.W. 6 has deposed that at about 4.40 p.m. ou July 2, 1967 information was received from the control room about the accident and that he then went to the scene of the occurrence. He saw double decker bus . no. 03 stationary on the southern footpath with the front portion of the bus damaged and the wind screen broken. He saw one dead body lying below the electric pole with one hand severed lying nearby and also b-roken skull with brain substance visible :md lying on the road. · He drew up panchanama and also rough sketch (Ex. PB). He sent the dead body to the City Morgue and arrested the accused and sent him to the police station. He then contacted the four injured persons in the hospi-E tal and the complainant, (meaning thereby P.W. 5) at his resi-dence as late as 8.30 p.m. on the same day and recorded what he describes to be, the first information report. Harbansing, one of the four injured persons had, according to this witness, left Bom-bay the same night with the !esult that his statement could not be recorded. In cross-examination he has explained that Ha1:bansing was reluctant to make any statement because he wanted to go to his native place where he was stated to be on the date of the examination of P.W. 6 in court, which was March 20, B68. P.W. l is the doctor who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body. His evidence is not material for our purpose. This is all the prosecution evidence led in the case. We cannot help expressing our surprise and regret at the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. The investigating officer unfortunately did not care to have the photographs taken of the position of the vehicle, the electric pole and the persons injured and dead as result of the accident. He did not care even to take the measurement' of the height of the kerb, which in our view, was very relevant factor. Nor did te care to get the II vehicle examined by mechanic for the purpose of ascertaining if its mechanism wa< in order and particularly if its brakes were working properly. The rough sketch prepared by him is highly

unsatisfactory document as it only gives us an extremely rough idea of the position this is of little assistance in determining the question of the appellant's guilt in the criminal trial. Kanu Girdharlal Joshi, an LL.B: student, appeared as D.W. 1. He claims to have seen the bus and the bhaiya immediately prior to the actual accident. The bhaiya was crossing the road running. The witness on seeing the bhaiya shouted to him to stop but the bhaiya continued running: The bus then took tum to its left, mounting the footpath and causing the accident in question.The learned Presidency Magistrate,. who tried and convicted the appellant, and the High Court, which heard and dismissed his appeal, have both held the appellant guilty almost exclusively on the nature of the ac.cident and on the appellant's inability to stop the bus on seeing the bhaiya who was attempting to cross the road. Both these courts. disbelieved D. W. t They passed strictures against him in very strong language and cast aspersions even on his knowledge of law. Shri Pardiwala complained that the trial court had misread the prosecution evidence and the High Court was influenced by number of assumptions which cannot be sustained on the material on the record, some of those assump-tions being even contradictory, and this has resulted in grave mis-carriage of justice. The condemnation of D.W. 1, K.G. Joshi; by the courts below in strong language is also unjustified and un-fair to the witness, contended the counsel. Stress was also laid by the appellant's learned counsel on the opinion of the High Court emphasising the utterly perfunctory character of the investi-gation and the false statements made by S. I. Patil, (P.W. 6), the investigating officer. Our attention was drawn to the following observations in the judgment of the High Court :-

"Tilak Road at that hour of the day is more than normally crowded. In that crowded locality there are shops on both sides and hundreds of people move about on the footpaths. There were. also several passengers in the bus .and .the bus conductor. Yet this sub-Inspec-tor has not cared to make any enquiry to find out from anyone of , the persons round about, from anyone of the pas~ngers or any one of the shopkeepers round about how the accident occurred, with the result that the prosecution has been able to give evidence only of three persons who were injured and who in their very statement say nothing about how the accident took place and of Kisan Appa Kasbe. Even Kisan Appa Kasbe's attention it appears was attracted towards the incident by the sound of the impact of the bus with the pole. Notwithstanding this statement of each one of these witnesses it is surprising that the Sub-Inspector

should not have pursued further investigation but should have put up the case upon such evidence. What is still worse is that one important person whose evi-dence was available and could have been examined was not examined. He is the injured person Harbansing. He.was removed to the K.E.M. Hospital and was under treatment there for Jong time. This is estab-lished upon the evidence of Dr. Kole P.W. L He had fracture of the jaw bone and six other injuries, and being admitted to the hospital on 2nd July 1967 was dis-chargetl from the hospital on the 23rd August 1967 according to the evidence of Dr. Kole, Sub-Inspector (' Patil was asked why Harbansing's statement was not recorded and this is what he has stated Harbansing Ramnarayan one ol the 4 injured left Bombay on the same night. His statement therefore would not be re-corded'. Jn the face of the evidence of Dr. Kole it is clear that this evidence of Sub-Inspector Patil is utterly ll false bccnuse Harbansing was in no condition to move. He was in hospital and remained in the hospital till 23rd August 1967 for almost month and 26 days after the accident and yet it is surprising to see this ·esponsible police officer saying that he could not re-cord his statement because he left Bombay on the same night. One begin~ to wonder whether this Sub-Inspec-tor made any enquiries at all about the whereabouts of Harbansing. In his cross-examination he has further given different reason. He has stated 'Harbansing was reluctant to make any statement as he wanted· to go to his native place. He is at his native place'. Even this reason does not appear to me satisfactory I reason at all. Even if he had gone away to his native place, Harbansing could well have been contacted and his statement recorded." Shri Pardiwala submitted that on this observation alone the pro-secution case should have failed. We find there is considerable force in this submission. The High Court has also observed that no attempt had at all been made "to ascertain the probable speed of the bu> by measuring the tyre marks on the road though, according to the witnesses, the brakes were jammed and there was screaming sound as the bus came to halt", adding, that even the elementary precaution of having the bus tested for the effi-11 ciency of its brakes was not taken. Though according to Shri Pardiwala the observation ')f the High Court, that, the brakes were jammed and there was screaming sound, was not sup-ported by evidence, in our opinion, assuming this observation to

be supported by evidence, it only senies to fortify the view of the High Court that the investigation h~ bee~ C?nducted in very casual and superficial manner. The mvesugatmg officer seems to have. acted without the requisite sense of responsibility essential for fair and just police investigatiOJ,l into serious accidents like the present, with the result that important evide!1ce whi~h was available and should easily have been forthcommg has not been brought before the court for wholly inadequate-if not flimsy-reasons. Examination of the marks of wheels on the road would have been very useful in appreciating other evidence. What is more surprising is that even evidence on the state of the traffic on the road at the relevant time and on the height of the kerb has not been produced by the prosecution. This evidence would have clearly helped the court in having clearer picture of the position -and in more satisfactorily appreciating the circumstances in which the accident occurred. If there was meagre traffic, then, there was greater likelihood of the appellant being able to see the. running bhaiya more clearly, whereas if .traffic was heavy then there was chance of the bhai);a emerging from behind 0 some vehicle. unnoticed by the appellant. Similarly the height of the kerb was relevant factor to be considered in fom1ing an opinion about the likely speed of the bus. The prosecution failed to appreciate the importance of these aspects and did not care to adduce any evidence on them. This reflects high degree of in· effidency on the part of the investigating agency. The High Court has, however, observed (perhaps on the basis of personal knowledge of the learned Chief Justice who decided the appeal in the High Court) that the road at that time was more than nor-mally crowded. If that was so then it was question for con· sideration as to from how much distance was the appellant able to see the bhaiya running, in his anxiety, to cross the road. The High Court did not advert to this aspect at all. Indeed, at one place the High Court has observed that the appellant would hav~ noticed the bhaiya when he was running to cross the road. This <:ould be possible only on the assumption that the traffic on the road was not very heavy and it did not block the appellant's vision. The High Court has also observed that this was not the first time when an investigation in case where the public motor vehicle belonging to public body was involved in an accident had been utlerly perfunctory. The fact that this was not the firsl occasion of inefficient and perfunctory investigation in such cases. could not, in our view, serve as an argument for placing premium on the inefficiency of the investigating agency and for convicting the accused which could only be done if the evidence had estab-lished- his guili beyond reasonable doubt.

No doubt when an accident like the present takes place one naturally expects the driver concerned to explain the circum-

stances in which he was obliged to take the bus on to ihe footpath and to strike against the electric pole with such force, thereby killing one human being and injuring several others. The satb-factory nature of the explanation to absolve him of his criminal liability for the accident has, in such circumstances, to be appraised in the light of the entire evidence on the record. The onus of course remains on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused. The evidence of the bus, however, having mounted on to the footpath, which, in the normal course, does not hap-pen, is admissible and has to be duly taken into account in under-standing and evaluating the entire evidence led in the case and in appraising the value of tlie explanation given by the accused for his compulsion which resulted in the accident. The appellant's explanation, even though not conclusive, does, in the absence o[ the testimony of the bhaiya and of at least some out of the passengers said to have been travelling in the bus, who might have been able to throw some helpful light on the relevant cir-cumstances, seem to leave fair scope for reasonable doubt about his guilt. Whether the failure on the part of the investigating agency to contact persons who would have given useful material evidence. relevant for finding the truth was due to inefficiency or was deliberate having been inspired by some other motive is nm for us to speculate on the existing record. Suffice it to say that if it appears as ii does in this case, that material evidence has n'1l been collected by the investigating agency for reasons which arc wholly unconvincing and the evidence actually produced, leave' serious lacuna in bringing hi~ guilt home to the appellant, th~n. merely because the nature of the ~ccident prima facie requires an explanation from the driver would not be sufficient to sustain hi' conviction, if the truth of his explanation, which is not liable to rej.ection outright, could have been appropriately judged if the evidence left out by the prosecution had been produced. The learne<;1 Chief . J u.stice. on appeal did advert to the possibility of recorclmg bhaiya s evidence at that stage. The idea was, how-ever,. dropped because t~e ap~llant's counsel did not agree to ~xam.me him. In our view, this was hardly proper approach m this case. Though we feel that in August, 1969, two year; n!ter the .occurrence of July 2, 1967, the statement of Harban-G smg, bhazya, who ~ad. never been interrogated by the investigat-mi; agency was unhkely to be very helpful, nevertheless if tl:ii! ~1~ Court felt tha~ his evidence was ·necessary in the interest of JUStlce, then, the witness could and should have been examined as court witness, the defence objection notwithstanding Parties co~ld not. c?ntrol the c?urt's discretion to have before it further ev1den~ 1f It was considered necessary for finding the truth for pr?motJng t~e. cause of j~stice. Justice would fail not only by un1ust conv1~t10~ of th.e mnocent but also by acquittal of the guilty for un1ust1fied fa!lure to produce available evidence. On

the existing record we find the evidence to be inadequate and un-safe for convicting the appellant. This, however, i§ entirely due to the faulty and inefficient investigation, for which no justifica-tion is forthcoming. On the view that we have taken it is un-~ecessary to refer to the decisions cited at. the bar on the ques-tion of onus of proof in criminal cases generally.

This appeal is of course before us under Art., 136 of the Constitution but the judgments of the trial court and of the. High Court proceed principally on ussumptions not fully supportable on the material on the record. That is why we have considered it just, fair and proper to examine the evidence ourselves. We find there is serious lacuna in the case wholly due to the in-efficient and perfunctory investigation by the investigating agency.

Before concludir.g we cannot help observing that the adverse remarks made against K. G. Joshi, P.W. 1, are hardly fair or just. Assuming his testimony did not impose the courts below. they should have expressed their opinion in temperate language usually associated with and reflecting the impersonal diginity of judicial rc,traint. The strong language used in condemning him and otherwise casting aspersions on him which were um1ecessary is, in our opinion, uncalled for and we cannot approve of those nhservations.

The result is that this appeal succeeds and allowing the same 11c acquit the appellant.

Appeal allowed.