1998 (5) TMI 402 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal Reversed: Conviction Under IPC Sections 302, 307/34 and Explosive Substances Act Section 3 Upheld on Appeal

SC upheld the HC judgment that reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and ... Powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction - Whether the judgment of the High Court under appeal warrants interference - High Court in Criminal Appeal setting aside their acquittal by the trial court and convicting and sentencing them as follows: under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.- HELD THAT:- It is not a case where the incident took place in wee hour of the night when everybody was sleeping and then they got up after the explosion and would not have been in a position to see the actual throwing of bombs. They were all sitting on the platform and were obviously conscious of what was happening in the surrounding as is evident from their statements. We also find no substance in the issue as to whether the deceased was sitting or lying - a fact which weighed with the trial court to disbelieve the prosecution story. It is quite possible that the witnesses who stated that Nanukuttan was sitting must have seen him before he lied down on the platform and the witnesses who stated that he was sleeping must have seen him lying and stated that he was sleeping. This contradiction, in our view, does not affect the prosecution case. We also find that the case of the prosecution is corroborated by medical evidence of PWs-14 and 19. PW-14 is the doctor who examined PWs. 1,2 and 4 and issued Exh. P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively. PW-19 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate, Exh. P-9. PW-19 sent the pieces of body of the deceased to Forensic laboratory for report. Exhs. P-10 and P-11 are the reports which show the presence of explosive substance in the body of the deceased The blood clotted newspaper pieces and twine etc. collected from the scene of occurrence, MOS 5 and 6, were also found to contain explosive substance which also corroborates the prosecution story of throwing of bomb by the accused persons. There cannot be any possibility of falsely implicating the accused because soon after the occurrence, Exh. p-1 was lodged wherein the overt acts attributed to the appellants were noted. For these rightly found the appellant guilty of offences mentioned in the judgement under appeal. From the above discussion, it follows that the approach of the trial court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. It is thus mot the case where two reasonable views on examination of the evidence on record are possible and so the one which supports the accused, should be adopted. The view taken by the trial court can hardly be said to be a view on proper consideration of evidence much less a reasonable view. Therefore, interference by the High Court in the appeal against acquittal of the appellant and recording the finding of their conviction for offences under Sections 302,307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, on consideration of the evidence, is justified. The judgement under appeal does not warrant any interference. We find no merit in this appeal; it is accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the High Court's judgment reversing the trial court's acquittal.2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.3. Applicability of legal principles in appeals against acquittal.Summary:1. Validity of the High Court's Judgment:The appellants challenged the High Court's judgment that set aside their acquittal by the trial court and convicted them u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC, u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The High Court found the appellants guilty based on the evidence presented, which the trial court had previously dismissed.2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Credibility:The case involved a violent incident on April 21, 1983, resulting from trade union rivalry, where one person died, and three others were injured. The prosecution's case was supported by the testimonies of PWs 1 to 22, and material evidence marked as Exts. P-1 to P-17 and M.O.S. 1 to 7. The trial court acquitted the accused, questioning the credibility of the eye-witnesses (PWs 1 to 5 and 7) due to their union affiliations. However, the High Court found their testimonies credible, noting that their presence at the scene was corroborated by injuries and FIR details. The High Court also relied on medical evidence and forensic reports that supported the prosecution's narrative.3. Applicability of Legal Principles in Appeals Against Acquittal:The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing appellate court powers in appeals against acquittal. It emphasized that an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only if the trial court's approach was patently illegal or its conclusions were wholly untenable. The High Court's judgment was scrutinized to ensure it adhered to these principles. The Supreme Court found that the trial court's approach was erroneous and its conclusions unsustainable, justifying the High Court's interference.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding no merit in the appeal. The appellants' conviction and sentences were confirmed, and those on bail were ordered to surrender. The trial court's judgment was found to be patently erroneous, and the High Court's interference was deemed justified.