MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

(Criminal Appeal No. 1479 of 2015)

JULY 10, 2018

[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148 and 302 r/w s.149 – Factionrivalry – Murder – Appeal against conviction – On the fateful day,victim-deceased was lying on the cot in the courtyard and PWs 3and 4 were sitting near him – PW-2 went inside and was takingmeal – Appellants along with other accused armed with deadlyweapons like swords, knife, sticks and motor cycle chain came tothe courtyard of the house of deceased – A-3 and A-8 assaultedthe deceased with sword on his head, A-5 attacked with sword onhis legs, A-7 attacked with knife on his foot and legs – Other accusedattacked deceased with motor cycle chain and sticks – PW- 3 and 4got frightened and ran inside the house and stood near the windowand witnessed the incident – Deceased was grievously injured andwas rushed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries – Trialcourt held that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of accusedbeyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused – High Courtheld that evidence of PWs 2 to 4 as to the overt act of accused wasconsistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery ofweapons and reversed the acquittal of all accused except A-2 – Onappeal, plea of appellants was that evidence of PW-2 was notbelievable as he was present in the house and did not go to rescuehis brother and remained mute spectator – Held: Evidence of witnessis not to be disbelieved simply because he has not reacted in aparticular manner – Likewise, the relationship of PW-2 with thedeceased cannot be the reason for doubting the testimony of PW-2– Medical evidence also lent assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to4 – Prompt registration of FIR and recovery of incriminating weaponson disclosure statements of accused also strengthened theprosecution case – Trial court did not properly appreciate theevidence and its findings are perverse – When the approach of thetrial court is perverse, in an appeal against the order of acquittal,

Aa duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence –As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importance toinsignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs of thebody with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to why theyhave not reacted in particular manner and while doing so, thetrial court failed to appreciate the substratum of the prosecutionBcase – High Court on being satisfied that the conclusion reachedby the trial court was erroneous reversed the order of acquittalrecorded by the trial court – There is no ground to interfere with thejudgment of the High Court – The conviction of the appellants unders.302 r/w s.149 is confirmed and the sentence of life imprisonmentCimposed upon each of them is confirmed.

Criminal Law – Evidence – FIR – Non-mention of names ofeye-witnesses in FIR – Effect on prosecution case – Evidence ofPWs 3 and 4 is sought to be assailed on the ground that their nameswere not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and thatDthey are interested witnesses – Held: Deceased was critically injuredand when he was taken to the police station, on seeing his seriouscondition, deceased was sent to the hospital along with policeconstable – PW-2 remained in the police station to lodge thecomplaint and his statement was recorded – His brother having beencritically injured, PW-2 must have been in disturbed mind andEmust have been in hurry to rush to the hospital to save his brother– Thus, non-mention of the names of eye witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) inthe FIR should be examined in the situation in which PW-2 wasplaced – FIR..

Evidence – Reaction of witness in particular manner – Held:FOn witnessing crime, each person reacts in his own way and theirevidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness has notacted in particular manner – Witness.

Appeal – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference,discussed.G

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 FIR is not an encyclopedia which is expectedto contain all the details of the prosecution case. It may besufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case about theoccurrence appear. Omission as to the names of the assailants orH

the witnesses may not all the times be fatal to the prosecution, ifthe FIR is lodged without delay. Unless there are indications offabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution case as givenin the FIR merely because of omission. In the instant case, FIRwas registered without delay and prompt registration of FIR itselflends assurance to the prosecution case. The object of the FIRis to set the law in motion. Omission to give the names ofassailants or the names of witnesses in the FIR is not fatal to theprosecution case. [Para 14] [276-A-C]

1.2 Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is assailed on the ground thatPWs 3 and 4 have not gone to the rescue of the deceased and itis quite unbelievable that on seeing the accused who were armedwith weapons, both of them went inside the house. In theirevidence, PWs 3 and 4 have stated that on seeing number ofaccused armed with deadly weapons got frightened and wentinside the house and stood near the window and saw theoccurrence. Their evidence cannot be doubted on the groundthat they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts tosave the deceased. On witnessing crime, each person reacts inhis own way and their evidence cannot be doubted on the groundthat the witness has not acted in particular manner. The evidenceof PWs 3 and 4 cannot be doubted merely because they have notacted in particular manner. [Para 15] [276-D-F]

1.3 While appreciating the evidence of witness, approachmust be whether the evidence of witness read as whole appearsto have ring of truth and consistent with the prosecution caseor to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the case.Their evidence cannot be doubted merely because they belongto opposite faction. All that is required is that their evidence isto be scrutinized with care and caution. On testing the evidenceof PWs 2 to 4, the High Court found that their evidence isconsistent and credit worthy. There is no reason to take adifferent view. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is corroborated bymedical evidence. Further, PW-14 opined that nineteen tofourteen injuries could have been caused by swords. Oralevidence of PWs 2 to 4 is thus corroborated by the medicalevidence. PW-14 conducted the post-mortem has noticed that“half of the stomach with rice is not digested”. PW-14 opined that

Athe deceased died within two hours of his last meal which again isconsistent with the evidence of PWs 2 to 4. Medical evidence ofPW-14 lends assurance to the evidence of PWs 2 to 4.[Paras 17 and 18] [277-C-F]

2. PW-16, Investigating Officer had recovered blood-stainedBquilt from the scene of occurrence i.e. courtyard of house of thedeceased and also blood-stained mud and sample mud. ChemicalAnalysis Report showed presence of ‘A’ group blood in the quilt.While narrating the occurrence, eye witnesses have stated thatafter the attack, the deceased had fallen down from the cot; inthat course, thighs and legs of the deceased might have beenCsmeared with mud. The presence of mud on the thighs and legstherefore does not raise doubts about the prosecution case. Thisis too insignificant fact to give importance so as to disbelieveand discard the entire prosecution case as such. [Para 20][278-C-E]D

3. In an appeal against the order of acquittal, the appellate

court would be slow to disturb the findings of the trial court whichhad the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In anappeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo forreappreciating the evidence and to take different view; but thereEmust be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal.As observed by the High Court, the trial court gave importanceto insignificant aspects like “smearing of the thighs and legs ofthe body with mud” and the conduct of the witnesses as to whythey have not reacted in particular manner and while doing so,the trial court failed to appreciate the substratum of theFprosecution case. The High Court on being satisfied that theconclusion reached by the trial court was erroneous reversedthe order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. [Paras 22, 25][278-G-H; 280-E-G]

Mohabbat v. State of M.P. (2009) 13 SCC 630 : [2009]G1 SCR 883 ; Rana Partap v. State of Haryana (1983) 3SCC 327 ; Chanrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630 ; Kallu alias Masih andOthers v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : [2006] 1SCR 201 – relied on.

MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OFMAHARASHTRA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo. 1479 of 2015.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1994.

Y. P. Adhyaru, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advs., Ms. Manisha T.Karia, Ms. Soumya, Shashank Mongal, Karan Sharma, Ms. MahikaVarma, Sang Rattan Negi, Pankaj Singhal, Advs. for the Appellants.

Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgmentdated 30.07.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay inCriminal Appeal No.174 of 1994 in and by which the High Court reversedthe judgment of the acquittal of the appellants/accused Nos. 3, 5, 7 and8 and convicted them under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPCand sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that PW-2-AnantBudhaji Joshi is the brother of deceased Machindra Budhaji Joshi. BothAnant and Machindra were doing the work of electric fitting. PW-3-Kesarinath Bhagat and PW-4-Vasudeo Gaikar were also doing the samework. Appellant Motiram Padu Joshi (A3), Ratan Maruti Vaskar (A5),Devidas Maruti Vaskar (A7), Ramnath @ Ram Padu Joshi (A8),deceased-Machindra and prosecution witnesses are residents of villageOwa-peth, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Appellants/accused werebelonging to congress party and the deceased and the prosecutionwitnesses were from Shiv-sena party. In the election of Zilla Parishadin 1992, both parties became inimical to each other.

A3. On 26.04.1992, deceased Machindra had gone to villageNandgaon for electric fitting work along with PWs 3 and 4 and theyreturned at about 08.30 pm to the house of deceased. All three of themhad their dinner and were sitting on the cot in the courtyard. PW-2 wasthereafter taking his dinner inside the house. At about 09.30 pm,appellants along with other accused being armed with deadly weaponsBlike swords, knife, sticks and motor-cycle chain came to the courtyardof the house of deceased Machindra. Appellant Motiram (A3) wascarrying sword in his hand and assaulted the deceased on his head.Appellant Ratan (A5) attacked the deceased with the sword on the legsof the deceased. Appellant Ramnath (A8) also attacked the deceasedCwith the sword on his head. Appellant Devidas (A7) attacked thedeceased with knife on his foot and legs. Other accused against whomthe appeal is abated assaulted the deceased with motor-cycle chain andsticks. On seeing the accused armed with deadly weapons, PWs 3 and4 got frightened and went inside the house and stood near the window ofthe house and witnessed the occurrence. Due to the assault, the deceasedDfell down from the cot having sustained grievous injuries and PW-2 tookthe deceased in the truck of his brother PW-5-Eknath Joshi to Talojapolice station. Considering the serious conditions of the deceased, hewas sent to the Municipal Dispensary at Panvel along with policeconstable Mhatre. PW-15-Atmaram, Head Constable recorded theEstatement of PW-2, based on which, FIR in Crime No.44/92 wasregistered under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC. On the samenight at about 11.30 pm, deceased Machindra succumbed to injuries andthe FIR was altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC.

4. Sub-Inspector Mr. Laxman Shejal (PW-16) had taken up theFinvestigation and he visited the spot and prepared the rough sketch(Ex.A42). From the spot, he collected blood-stained quilt (Article No.3)and also blood-stained soil and sample mud. The body was sent toautopsy and PW-14-Dr. Ramrao Kendre conducted the post-mortemand noticed as many as twenty-six injuries in the nature of incised wounds,contusions on the head, legs, right arm and all over the body of theGdeceased. Dr. Ramrao Kendre opined that the cause of death was“shock secondary to celebral contusion due to blood trauma overoccipital area”.

5. The accused were arrested on 27.04.1991. Based on thedisclosure statement of appellant Motiram, one sword (Article No.8)H

was recovered on 09.05.1992. Swords (Article No.9) also came to berecovered at the instance of appellants Ratan and Ramnath on 11.05.1992and 10.05.1992. The motor-cycle chain and sticks also came to berecovered from the other accused. The Chemical Analysis Reportdisclosed that ‘A’ group blood was found on Article No.8 (sword recoveredat the instance of appellant Motiram) and Article No.12 (Motor-cyclechain). On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed againstall the nine accused under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC.

6. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution hasexamined as many as sixteen witnesses and also produced materialobjects and exhibited documents. The accused were questioned underSection 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstancesand the accused denied all of them and stated that they have been falselyimplicated. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court pointed outthat PW-2 has criminal record and that his evidence is improbable.The trial court also held that the presence of PWs 3 and 4 was doubtfuland their evidence is untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon to convictthe accused. The trial court further held that the prosecution has notproved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquittedall the accused.7. On appeal by the State, the High Court held that the evidenceof PWs 2 to 4 as to the overt act of the accused is consistent andcorroborated by the medical evidence and recovery of weapons. TheHigh Court held that the trial court erred in disbelieving the evidence ofeye witnesses and the reasonings of the trial court suffers from perversity.Observing that prompt registration of FIR lends credenceto theprosecution case which is also strengthened by medical evidence andrecovery of weapons, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trialcourt and convicted the appellants as aforesaid in para (1). The HighCourt maintained the acquittal of accused Baburao (A2).

8. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court,accused Ragho Dharma Koli (A1), Rohidas Balram Joshi (A4), SatyawanBalu Waskar (A6) and Dnyandeo Sakharam Joshi (A9) died and theappeal against them stood abated.

9. We have heard Mr. Y.P. Adhyaru and Mr. Sidharth Luthralearned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of State of Maharashtra. We have perused

Athe impugned judgment and carefully considered the rival contentionsand the evidence and materials placed on record.

10. There are three eye witnesses namely Anant, brother ofdeceased (PW-2), Kesarinath (PW-3) and Vasudeo (PW-4). PWs 2 to4 have consistently stated that on the date of incident, after having dinner,Bdeceased was lying on the cot in the courtyard and PWs 3 and 4 weresitting near him. PW-2 went inside and was taking meal. At about09.30 pm, the appellants and other accused armed with weapons camethere shouting and running. On seeing the accused armed with deadlyweapons, PWs 3 and 4 got frightened and went inside the house.Appellant Motiram attacked the deceased with sword on his head,Cappellant Ratan attacked the deceased with sword on his legs, appellantRamnath attacked the deceased with sword on his head and appellantDevidas attacked the deceased with knife on his foot and legs. Onhearing the alarm raised by deceased Machindra, PW-2 came out andraised shouts and on seeing the neighbours, the accused ran away fromDthe spot. PWs 2 to 4 have consistently spoken about the overt act of theappellants as mentioned above.

11. Evidence of PW-2 and his credibility is attacked by theappellants contending that:- (i) PW-2 though present in the house did notgo to the rescue of his brother Machindra and remained mute spectator;Eand (ii) PW-2 has criminal record. Just prior to the incident, PW-2went inside the house and was taking meals. On hearing the alarm raisedby his brother Machindra, PW-2 came outside. As the accused weremany in numbers and armed with deadly weapons like swords, knife,motor-cycle chain and sticks etc., PW-2 being unarmed would havenaturally become frightened and may not have dared to interfere.FEvidence of witness is not to be disbelieved simply because he has notreacted in particular manner.

12. Likewise, the relationship of PW-2 with the deceased cannotbe the reason for doubting the testimony of PW-2. It is fairly well-settledthat relationship is not ground affecting the credibility of witness. InGMohabbat v. State of M.P., (2009) 13 SCC 630,this Court held as under:-

“11. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other handsupported the judgment of the High Court.

“12. Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members theirevidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of

interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statementthat being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falselyimplicate the accused cannot be ground to discard the evidencewhich is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal withthe contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses forfurthering the prosecution version.

13. ‘5. … Relationship is not factor to affect credibility of awitness. It is more often than not that relation would not concealactual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person.Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. Insuch cases, the court has to adopt careful approach and analyseevidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v. JagirSingh (1974) 3 SCC 277, Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3SCC 76 (SCC pp. 81-82, paras 5-9) and Gangadhar Behera v.State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381.”

The above position was also highlighted in Babulal BhagwanKhandare v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404, SalimSahab v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 699 and Sonelal v. State ofM.P. (2008) 14 SCC 692 (SCC pp. 695-97, paras 12-13).”

As held in various decisions, judicial approach has to be cautiousin dealing with such evidence. It is unreasonable to contend that evidencegiven by related witness should be discarded only on the ground thatsuch witness is related.

13. Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is sought to be assailed on theground that their names were not mentioned in the First InformationReport (FIR) and that they are interested witnesses. Of course, namesof PWs 3 and 4 were not mentioned in the FIR. Deceased Machindrawas critically injured and when he was taken to the police station, onseeing his serious condition, deceased was sent to the hospital alongwith police constable Mhatre. PW-2 remained in the police station tolodge the complaint and his statement was recorded. His brother havingbeen critically injured, PW-2 must have been in disturbed mind andmust have been in hurry to rush to the hospital to save his brother.Non-mention of the names of eye witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) in the FIRshould be examined in the situation in which PW-2 was placed.

A14. Furthermore, as pointed out by the High Court, FIR is not anencyclopedia which should contain all the details of the incident. FIR isnot an encyclopedia which is expected to contain all the details of theprosecution case. It may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecutioncase about the occurrence appear. Omission as to the names of theassailants or the witnesses may not all the times be fatal to the prosecution,Bif the FIR is lodged without delay. Unless there are indications offabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution case as given in theFIR merely because of omission. In the present case, FIR was registeredwithout delay and prompt registration of FIR itself lends assurance tothe prosecution case. The object of the FIR is to set the law in motion.COmission to give the names of assailants or the names of witnesses inthe FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. The High Court was right inobserving that non-mention of the names of eye witnesses in the FIRcan hardly be fatal to the prosecution case.15. Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is assailed on the ground that PWsD3 and 4 have not gone to the rescue of the deceased and it is quiteunbelievable that on seeing the accused who were armed with weapons,both of them went inside the house. It is further submitted that the trialcourt righty held that their evidence is not trustworthy and the HighCourt was not right in intervening such finding and basing the convictionon the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. In their evidence, PWs 3 and 4 haveEstated that on seeing number of accused armed with deadly weaponsgot frightened and went inside the house and stood near the window andsaw the occurrence. Their evidence cannot be doubted on the groundthat they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save thedeceased. On witnessing crime, each person reacts in his own wayFand their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that the witness hasnot acted in particular manner. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 cannotbe doubted merely because they have not acted in particular manner.

16. We may usefully refer to the case in Rana Partap v. State ofHaryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327 as under:-G“6. Yet another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge todoubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct in notgoing to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutchesof the assailants was unnatural. We must say that the comment ismost unreal. Every person who witnesses murder reacts in his

own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rootedto the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some startshouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as farremoved from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescueof the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking theassailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is noset rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of witnesson the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is toappreciate evidence in wholly unrealistic and unimaginativeway.”

17. While appreciating the evidence of witness, approach mustbe whether the evidence of witness read as whole appears to have aring of truth and consistent with the prosecution case or to find outwhether it is against the general tenor of the case. Their evidence cannotbe doubted merely because they belong to opposite faction. All that isrequired is that their evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution.On testing the evidence of PWs 2 to 4, the High Court found that theirevidence is consistent and credit worthy. We find no reason to take adifferent view.

18. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 is corroborated by medicalevidence. Further, PW-14 opined that nineteen to fourteen injuries couldhave been caused by swords (Articles 8 and 9). Oral evidence of PWs2 to 4 is thus corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-14-Dr. Ramraowho conducted the post-mortem has noticed that “half of the stomachwith rice is not digested”. PW-14 opined that the deceased died withintwo hours of his last meal which again is consistent with the evidence ofPWs 2 to 4. Medical evidence of PW-14 lends assurance to the evidenceof PWs 2 to 4.

19. Prosecution case is further corroborated by recovery ofweapons from the accused. Based on the disclosure statement ofappellant Motiram, one sword (Article No.8) was recovered and anothersword at the instance of appellant Ratan (Article No.9) was recoveredand another sword was also recovered on the disclosure statement ofappellant Ramnath. Chemical Analysis Report (Ex. A32) showed thatthe blood-stained found on the quilt seized from the scene of occurrencewas that of ‘A’ group. ‘A’ group blood was also detected on swordswhich were recovered, based on the disclosure statement of appellants

AMotiram (Article No.8) and Ratan (Article No.9). The presence of ‘A’group blood (Blood Group of deceased) on the weapons recovered isyet another piece of evidence corroborating the evidence of PWs 2 to 4and strengthening the prosecution case.

20. PW-14-Dr. Ramrao noticed that the thighs and legs of theBdeceased was smeared with mud. Learned senior counsel for theappellants submitted that in view of the presence of mud on the body ofthe deceased, serious doubts arise as to the time and place of occurrenceand that there is no possibility of the occurrence having taken place inthe courtyard of the house of deceased Machindra. This submissiondoes not merit acceptance for more than one reason. Firstly, as pointedCout earlier, PW-16-Laxman Shejal, Investigating Officer had recoveredblood-stained quilt (Article No.3) from the scene of occurrence i.e.courtyard of house of the deceased and also blood-stained mud andsample mud. Chemical Analysis Report (Ex. A32) showed presence of‘A’ group blood in the quilt. While narrating the occurrence, eye witnessesDhave stated that after the attack, the deceased had fallen down from thecot; in that course, thighs and legs of the deceased might have beensmeared with mud. The presence of mud on the thighs and legs thereforedoes not raise doubts about the prosecution case. This aspect ofsubmission advanced by the appellants has been elaborately consideredby the High Court in para (42) of its judgment. As rightly observed byEthe High Court, this is too insignificant fact to give importance so as todisbelieve and discard the entire prosecution case as such.

21. Learned senior counsel for the appellants then contended thatonly when there are compelling and substantial reasons, the High Courtcan interfere with the order of acquittal and in the present case, thereFwere no such compelling circumstances or glaring mistakes in thejudgment of the trial court to reverse the order of acquittal.

22. It is fairly well-settled that in an appeal against the order ofacquittal, the appellate court would be slow to disturb the findings of thetrial court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses.GIn an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo forreappreciating the evidence and to take different view; but there mustbe strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. In the appealagainst order of acquittal, the paramount consideration of the appellatecourt should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.

23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court inan appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to variousjudgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415,this Court summarised the principle as under:-

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, thefollowing general principles regarding powers of the appellate courtwhile dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciateand reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal isfounded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellatecourt on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion,both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compellingreasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strongcircumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate courtin an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in thenature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance ofan appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail thepower of the court to review the evidence and to come to its ownconclusion.(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in caseof acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him underthe fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that everyperson shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guiltyby competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having securedhis acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis ofthe evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb thefinding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

A24. In Kallu alias Masih and others v. State of M.P., (2006) 10SCC 313,this Court held as under:-

“8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of theappellate court is no less than the power exercised while hearingappeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the powerBexists to review the entire evidence. However, one significantdifference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with,by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court isbased on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible.It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because adifferent view is possible. The appellate court will also bear inCmind that there is presumption of innocence in favour of theaccused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt.Further, if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons fordiffering with the decision of the trial court.”

25. In the present case, as held by the High Court, the trial courtDhas not properly appreciated the evidence and its findings are perverse.When the approach of the trial court is perverse, in an appeal against theorder of acquittal, duty is cast upon the High Court to reappreciate theevidence. The deceased had sustained as many as twenty-six injuries.PWs 1 to 3 have consistently spoken about the incident and that theEappellants were armed with deadly weapons and the overt acts of theappellants which is corroborated by the medical evidence and also byrecovery of weapons from the appellants/accused. As observed by theHigh Court, the trial court gave importance to insignificant aspects like“smearing of the thighs and legs of the body with mud” and theconduct of the witnesses as to why they have not reacted in particularFmanner and while doing so, the trial court failed to appreciate thesubstratum of the prosecution case. The High Court on being satisfiedthat the conclusion reached by the trial court was erroneous reversedthe order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We do not find anygood ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.G26. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of lifeimprisonment imposed upon each of them is confirmed and this appeal isdismissed.

HDevika Gujral

Appeal dismissed.