Concurrent findings of fact and cautious appraisal of evidence controlled the outcome: acquittals were restored, but one conviction was affirmed.

In criminal appeals, concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily disturbed absent exceptional circumstances, and an acquittal should not be reversed where the trial court's view is a reasonable one and two views of the evidence are possible. Applying that principle, the SC found the eye-witness account against Nathoo, Dr. R. Kohli and Banney Khan unsafe for uncorroborated reliance, and treated the dying declarations with caution; their conviction was set aside. By contrast, Balak Ram's conviction was sustained because concurrent findings that he fired the fatal shot were supported by ballistic evidence, his alibi was rejected, and no ground existed to interfere with the sentence, including death.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli and Banney Khan and convicting them on the evidence relied upon; (ii) Whether the conviction and sentence of Balak Ram, based on concurrent findings and ballistic evidence, called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of Nathoo, Dr. R. Kohli and Banney Khan and convicting them on the evidence relied upon.

Analysis: The evidence of the eye-witnesses was not found trustworthy enough to furnish mutual corroboration. Their presence, conduct, omissions in the first information report, political affiliations, and inconsistencies in their versions created serious doubts. The dying declarations were also treated with caution, and the Court found them unsafe to rely upon as uncorroborated proof against the acquitted accused. In these circumstances, the trial court's view was held to be a reasonable one, and the High Court was not justified in interfering where two views of the evidence were reasonably possible.

Conclusion: The conviction of Nathoo, Dr. R. Kohli and Banney Khan was set aside and their appeals were allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction and sentence of Balak Ram, based on concurrent findings and ballistic evidence, called for interference.

Analysis: As against Balak Ram, there was a concurrent finding that he fired the fatal shot, and the ballistic evidence supported that finding by connecting the bullet recovered from Radhey's body with Balak Ram's pistol. The plea of alibi was rejected by the courts below. No exceptional circumstance was shown to justify reappraisal of the concurrent factual conclusions, and no ground was made out for interference with the sentence as well.

Conclusion: Balak Ram's conviction and sentence, including the sentence of death, were affirmed and his appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals of Nathoo, Dr. Kohli and Banney Khan succeeded, while Balak Ram's appeal failed, leaving the convictions of the former set aside and those of Balak Ram maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In criminal appeals, concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily disturbed absent exceptional circumstances, and an order of acquittal should not be reversed where the trial court's view is a reasonable one and two views of the evidence are possible.

---