TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even at the time of giving evidence. 5. On the aforesaid motive, both the Accused carried three weapons, waylaid the deceased at a signal in a main road at about 5 p.m. and after the initial attack, dragged him to the pavement, and thereafter inflicted multiple injuries. Both the Accused and the deceased were travelling in two-wheelers. PW-1, who was working in a police station, a bit far away, was coming from his house after taking lunch. He was a chance witness. He saw the occurrence from a fair distance. He was known to the deceased. The deceased had his intestine coming out. The deceased told him the story implicating the Accused. Preceding PW-1, PW-2 was present at the scene. He was also a police head constable. Both PW-1 and PW-2 are working in the traffic department. He heard the statement made by the deceased, as one of the Accused threw a weapon at PW-2, which recovery was shown subsequently at a different open place, as is the case of the other recoveries. PW-1, thereafter, chased the Accused but could not secure them. The statements made by PW-1 and PW-2 differ with respect to the street. 6. PW-1 and PW-2 stopped an auto and placed the deceased into it along with one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court had no idea of the concept of dying declaration and the principle governing it. * The testimony of PWs 3, 4 and 5 ought to be read in unison and in conjunction with each other to come to an inference of motive. * The testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 25 ought to have been accepted. * The contradictions between the testimony of PW-2 and the statement Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, would only mean that the investigating officer was leaning towards the Accused. * The medical evidence along with the documents marked clearly point out the guilt towards the Accused. * The fact that the witnesses turned hostile including the panch witness who signed the recovery memos would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 13. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and conviction was rendered sentencing the Appellants for life. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 14. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that it is not probable that PW-1 could have been present on that day as a chance witness. He was having a grudge against the Accused. At their instance he was facing departmental proceedings. The trial court has considered the evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 173 * Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 * Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar (1977) 2 SCC 205 * Padmanabhan Vijaykumar v. State of Kerala (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 156 * Amar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020) SCC Online SC 826 * Narayana Reddy alias Babu v. State of Karnataka (2016) 14 SCC 212 * A Shanker v. State of Karnataka (2011) 6 SCC 279 * Selvaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 4 SCC 343 * Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 SUBMISSION OF THE STATE: 19. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High Court has correctly relied upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 25. PW-25 is an independent witness. Merely because PW-1 and PW-2 are the police officers, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. The High Court also took into consideration the documents marked on the side of the prosecution. As relevant materials were indeed taken into consideration, there is no need for interference particularly when we are dealing with a case of homicide of a police officer. DISCUSSION: 20. Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... caution before making any remark. 23. This Court, time and again has laid down the law on the scope of inquiry by an Appellate court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal Under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not wish to multiply the aforesaid principle except placing reliance on a recent decision of this Court in Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166: 14.2. When can the findings of fact recorded by a court be held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in paragraph 20 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under: (Babu case [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1179]) 20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn., (1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131], Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This Rule will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the peculiar circumstances of the case. 31.1. In Sambasivan [Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 : 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1320], the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and held the Accused guilty on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, however, the High Court did not record its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. Confirming the order passed by the High Court convicting the Accused on reversal of the acquittal passed by the learned trial court, after being satisfied that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court was perverse and suffered from infirmities, this Court declined to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the High Court. While confirming the order of conviction passed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aside the order of conviction passed by the High Court after having found that the approach of the Sessions Judge in recording the order of acquittal was not proper and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on several aspects was unsustainable. This Court further observed that as the Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the relevant/material evidence while acquitting the Accused, the High Court, therefore, was fully entitled to reappreciate the evidence and record its own conclusion. This Court scrutinised the evidence of the eyewitnesses and opined that reasons adduced by the trial court for discarding the testimony of the eyewitnesses were not at all sound. This Court also observed that as the evaluation of the evidence made by the trial court was manifestly erroneous and therefore it was the duty of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 31.3. In Atley [Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 : 1955 Cri. LJ 1653], in para 5, this Court observed and held as under: 5. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the judgment of the trial court being one of acquittal, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule. ON MERIT: 24. The trial court considered the testimonies of the other witnesses first before embarking upon eye witnesses and the material witness. It gives exhaustive reasoning for its ultimate conclusion. We have already recorded the fact that most of the witnesses turned hostile. PW-16, an independent witness also states that she has not seen the occurrence and she heard that the deceased was dead before taking to the hospital. The trial court took enormous pains in considering the evidence of all the witnesses one by one. 25. On considering the evidence of PW-7, a shoe shop owner, it gives its cogent reasoning for its non-acceptance. The previous bill and the relevant bill had a difference of about 8 months in between and this witness has not seen who has purchased the chappals marked as M.O. 8 from his shop. Similarly, PW-20 who was running an STD booth could not convince the trial court as he could not say that the Accused had made calls from his booth. On motive, it was correctly analysed that there was nothing to implicate the Accused with motive to murder the deceased. 26. PW-1 was the sterling witness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Ramesh. We may note, both PW-1 and PW-2 did not speak about this. He had also stated that he did not know whether the contents of Ex. P-41 as correct or not. He acknowledged the fact that he was well known to PW-1 and his family. 29. On a reading of the evidence of PW-25 we do not find any existence of dying declaration in it. He had deposed that he did not remember whether the deceased told him that the Accused attacked him and caused injuries. It is his further testimony that he had given Ex. P-41 due to the persistence of the police. He did not remember whether police asked him to name the Accused under Ex. P-41. 30. We have also perused Exhibit P-38, the case sheet maintained by PW-25. Exhibit P-38 though makes a mention about the Accused, it did not speak about any statement being made by the deceased about the Accused. It is interesting to note that PW-25 had stated that he did not record the statement of the deceased and that there were many policemen and general public at the relevant point of time, which is again a statement contrary to the case put up by the prosecution. Thus, we are in agreement with the reasoning of the trial court for not accepting the evidence o....