LAW FOR ALL

Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 High court acquitted, apex court confirmed the same = (I) The first information report has not been registered at the time and in the manner as it ought to have been written. (II) The counter FIR lodged by the respondents herein was written by Munshi (dead) on the dictation given by the Inspector of Police and not in accordance with the version given by the informant-respondent. (III) The report (Ex.P-13), which ought to have been lodged at the behest of the respondents herein, revealed that the respondents herein had used the lathis and a country-made pistol in selfdefence. (IV) There had been material discrepancies/contradictions/ inconsistencies in regard to the lodging of FIR and investigation so far as the statements of Pratap Singh, Head Constable and R.D. Yadav, S.O., and the entries made in the Rojnamcha. The cumulative effect of all the same creates a doubt in the prosecution story. (V) The FIR in the instant case against the respondents herein had been lodged by Pyare Chowkidar as directed by one Bilal Miyan who had informed him that Jagan had been killed by the party of Munshi and others. The said Bilal Miyan was neither an eye-witness, nor has been examined by the prosecution. (VI) Bilal Miyan had been informed by Ram Bharose about the murder of Jagan but who had not disclosed as who had killed Jagan. Thus, it was not clear as who had killed Jagan and the prosecution could not get any support whatsoever from the FIR. (VII) The evidence led by the prosecution shows that the offence was committed inside the house. Ram Bharose, witness, had seen it from Gallery. No such Gallery had been shown in the site plan. (VIII) The evidence had been that the rifle which was allegedly used in the murder was a single barrel gun but the empty cartridges used in the shooting were not recovered from the spot. No explanation had been furnished as what had happened to those empty cartridges. (IX) As per the prosecution, 3 live cartridges and one country-made pistol were found at the spot, though as per Ram Bharose, witness, the shot was fired from a single barrel gun. (X) The aforesaid contradictions led to the inference that Jagan had been murdered at some other place and in some other manner which was not brought on record by the prosecution. 10Page 11 (XI) It was nobody’s case that Collector Singh had fired two shots upon Jagan and even according to the postmortem report, there was no injury caused by the country-made pistol. (XII) There had been material contradictions regarding locking of the place where Jagan was detained and no explanation was there as who had opened that lock. (XIII) Ram Bharose and Rameshwar had been interested witnesses and their statements were full of discrepancies and contrary to the prosecution case. In view of the fact that no eye-witness was examined, the said material contradictions become most material. (XIV)The prosecution failed to explain the grievous injuries found on the person of Gobardhan and Munshi – accused herein. = This Court has laid down sufficient guidelines for interference by the superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.