LexAWADHESH & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' - AWADHESH & ANR. V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH APRIL !2, 1988 !KN. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.J Indian Penal Code-Challenging conviction by the High Court under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, after acquit- tal by trial court. This appeal was directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside the order of the trial court acquitting the appellants, and convicting them under section 301 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that on 4. t .198,:Z Ram Pratap Singh deceased had gone to Collectorate, Panna where he noticed that Om Prakash and Raghvendra, who were inimical to him, were shadowing him in the Collectorate. He requested Rajendra Singh PW 14, Chhotey Bhaiya. PW S, and Mohd. Tohid, PW 16, to accompany him on his return journey as he sensed danger to.his life, and sent Tohid to purch- ase bus tickets with a direction that he should meet him at the Octroi toll barrier _on the Ajaigarh Road from where he proposed to take the bus. Thereafter, he alongwith Rajendra Singh; PW J4 and ChhoteJ Bhaiya, PW JS, proceeded to Chungi Chowki (Octroi Post) on the Ajaigarh Road. While they were waiting for Tohid, Ram Pratap Singh --.._t went for drinking water from a well nearby. When he was just in the process of drinking water, gun shots were fired towards him, causing . injuries to him. Upon this, he ran towards his associates and fell down near Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya .. The prosecution further alleged that on hearing the gun shots, Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya saw the appellant Brajendra armed with a.315 rifle and Awadesh armed with a i2 bore gun running away, Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya, armed with a rifle and a gun respectively, fired shots towards the assailants and the assailants also fired towards them. On hearing gun fire, V.P. Pathak, Sub-Inspector of Police, PW 20, rushed to the spot with Constable Lakhan Singh, PW 12. Rajendra Singh, PW 14 gave him information about the incident, which was recorded by him (Dehati Nalishi Ex. P. 12 at 3.JO P.M.) V.P. Pathak, 513 A B c D E F G H A B c D 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1988] 3 S.C.R. sent the Dehati Nalishi to Kotwali Panna through Lakhan Singh, Const- able, for recording the first information report. Pathak, sub-inspector then prepared the panchnama and spot map Ex P. 17 on the same day. A cha"rge-sheet was submitted against five accused persons, including the two appellants Brajendra and Awadesh for trial for off- ences under section 302 read with section 34 and section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of the two eye-witnesses, Rajendra Singh, PW 14 and Chhotey Bhaiya, PW 15, and referring to a number of circumstances which made the prosecution story doubtful, acquitted the accused. On appeal by the State Government, the High Court disagreed with the reasons recorded by the Trial Court, and placing reliance on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, i.e., Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya, allowed the State appeal, set aside the acquittal of the appel- lants and convicted them under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded a sentence of life imprisonment to each of them. The appellants appealed to this Court against the decisian of the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court, HELD: The High Court on an appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all ,il E reasonable doubt. It referred to a number of decisions of this Court in considering the scope ofits jurisdiction in interfering with an order of acquittal passed by the trial court, but while applying the principles, it Failed to appreciate that the view taken by the trial court was reasonable and plausible. While considering an appeal against acquittal, the High - F Court must, in appreciating the evidence, keep in mind that if on +· _,J appraisal of evidence and considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one held hy the trial court for G acquitting the accused, and the other, for convicting the accused, in such a situation, the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court. Unless the conclusions of the trial court drawn on the evidence
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.