2. Laceration present behind the right ear,
Horizontally placed measuring 3 x 1.5 cm x
bone deep.
v) Laceration scalp present and
horizontally placed below injury No (iv)
measuring 3 x 1.5 cm x skull deep.
7. Contusion scalp present over occipital
region measuring 5cm x 4cm and over the
temporo-occipital region right side
measuring 9 x 6 cm.
8. Sub Arachnoid Hemorrhage present all
over the brain with sub-dural Hematoma
over the occipital lobe on the right side."
7. According to P.W.13, the cause of death was head
injury.
8. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against A-1 to
A-5 for the above said offences. However, learned Sessions
Judge found that A-2 to A-5 were not complicit of the
offences alleged against them. Even A-1 was found not guilty
for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. However,
appellant/A-1 was convicted under Section 304-II and 307 of
IPC. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the incident
happened at the spur of the moment and there was no pre-
meditation and intention to cause death of the deceased, by
A-1.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that grievous
injuries were received by P.W.4. Both the eye-witnesses,
P.Ws.3 and 4 narrated the incident, which reflects the
involvement of A-2 to A-5. For the said reason, the Sessions
Court has committed an error in acquitting A-2 to A-5. In
the background of convincing evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, the
acquittal of A-2 to A-5 has to be reversed and all A-1 to A-5
should be convicted for murder.
10. Having gone through the record, learned Sessions
Judge discussed the evidence of P.W.4 to find A-1 to A-5 not
guilty. According to learned Sessions Judge, P.W.4 admitted
in his cross-examination that when he along with P.W.3
proceeded to the land, A-1 was with the Driver of the tractor
and did not observe where A-2 to A-5 were present. P.W.4
further admitted that he took the keys of the tractor and
questioned the Driver as to why land is being tilled. Further,
P.W.4 admitted that he did not specifically speak about A-2
to A-5 beating the deceased and also A-2 to A-5 beating him.
Similar omissions were elicited during the cross-examination
by P.W.3. In view of the said admissions by P.Ws.3 and 4,
the presence of A-2 to A-5 was doubted. Accordingly, benefit
of doubt was extended to A-2 to A-5.
11. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 1, held that while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the
trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The
reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the
appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order
of the trial court rendering acquittal.
12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding
the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate
Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as
follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other
appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles
crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial
and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court
would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to
discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and
compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous
view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave
miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying
declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight
and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that
leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
13. Learned Public Prosecutor has not made out any
compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal of
A-2 to A-5. The incident happened when P.W.3, P.W.4, and
the deceased went to the land and they found A-1 tilling the
land, and then an altercation ensued. According to the
witnesses, A-2 to A-5 assaulted P.W.4 and also the
deceased. However, the answers elicited in the cross
examination of P.Ws.3 and 4 makes the presence of A-2 to
A-5 doubtful. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions
Judge while acquitting A-2 to A-5, is based on record and in
the background of contradictions elicited during the cross
examination of P.Ws.3 and 4, as discussed earlier.
14. There are no reasons to reverse the order of acquittal of
A-2 to A-5. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.1044 of 2017 is
dismissed.
15. Insofar as appellant/A-1 is concerned, the evidence of
A-1 assaulting both P.W.4 and the deceased is spoken to by
P.Ws.3 and 4. The initial quarrel took place with A-1. A-1
enraged with the questioning by the deceased and P.W.4,
started assaulting the deceased and also P.W.4. Admittedly,
the reason for assault was that there were disputes regarding
purchase of land by P.W.1, which belongs to paternal aunt of
A-1. Further, there were civil disputes pending before the
Civil Court. On the date of incident also, A-1 assaulted P.W.4
and the deceased, enraged by the fact of P.W.4 questioning
A-1 as to why A-1 was present in the field, then the keys of
the tractor were snatched by P.W.4 with the support by the
deceased. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly invoked
exception 4 of 300 of IPC finding that the assault was not pre
meditated and assault was as a result of quarrel and in the
heat of passion. From the facts, it appears that the attack on
deceased and P.W.4 was not intentional and premeditated.
16. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction of
the appellant under Section 304-II of IPC. However, the
conviction under Section 307 of IPC is converted to Section
326 of IPC and appellant is convicted accordingly.
17. The incident is of the year 2012, and since 13 years
have passed by, the sentence of imprisonment under Section
304-II of IPC is reduced to 4 years and for the offence under
Section 326 of IPC, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment
of 4 years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
18. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No.940 of 2014 is partly
allowed. Since the appellant/A-1 is on bail, he shall be
summoned by the concerned Court and sent to prison to
serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed by this
Court.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 18.02.2025
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.940 OF 2014 & 1044 OF 2017
Dt. 18.02.2025
dv
