KALLU @ MASIH AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 04-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KALLU @ MASIH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
JANUARY 4, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 147, 148,. 3071149, 3241149 and 3231149/Arms 
Act, 1959; Ss. 25 and 27/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378(3): 
A 
B 
Unlawful assembly of 27 persons-Attack-Injuring victim and four C 
female family members-Trial of accused for offences under Sections 147. 
148, 307, 323 and 327 r/w Section 149-Acquittal of all the accused by trial 
Court on the ground that no independent witness examined and also 
inconsistencies found in the statements of the eye-witnesses-On appeal, High 
Court found four of the accused persons guilty of committing offences D 
punishable under Ss. 323, 324 and 326 rlw Section 149 a~d sentenced them 
accordingly-On appeal, Held: Victim clearly identified the accused, weapons 
used by them and part of the body attacked-All the prosecution witnesses 
also identified the accused-Evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly show 
that accused armed with weapons assaulted the victim and other woman folk 
and injured them-Trial Court disbelieved their evidence merely on account E 
of minor inconsistencies in their evidence-High Court rightly held that such 
minor inconsistencies/discrepancies not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of 
eye-witness-Enmity between the victim and the accused could not be a ground 
1· 
to reject the clear evidence of the ef~witnesses-Criminal trial. 
Appeal against acquittal-Power of the Appellate Court-Reid: No less F 
than the power exercised by it in appeal against conviction-However, it 
cannot reverse the decision of the trial Court merely because a different view 
is possible and without assigning reasons-Since High Court assigned reasons 
for reversing the order of acquittal into conviction. it rightly interfered with 
the order of the trial Court. 
G 
Unlawful assembly-Forming of-Held: Trial Court held trial of 27 
> 
accused persons and acquitted all of them-On appeal, High Court granted 
leave against jive of the accused and disposed oft he appeal giving benefit of 
201 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A doubt to one and convicted four of them--Since evidence clearly show that 
more than five persons armed with weapons came and assaulted the victim 
and others with the common object of injuring them, unlawful assembly 
constituted/formed. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, an unlawful 
B . assembly of 27 persons including the accused-appellants armed with 
weapons came to the house of the victim-PW4. Appellants dealt a blow 
on the head of the victim with a sword and other weapons and injured 
him when four female members of his family/prosecution witnesses PW6, 
PW7, PW9 and PWIO came to his rescue, they were also attacked by the 
C accused. PW3 took the injured to a Hospital and also lodged an FIR in 
the Police Station against 27 accused persons. Trial Court tried them for 
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 324 IPC and under 
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and acquitted all of them. On appeal, 
High Court allowed the appeal partly and found four of the accused guilty 
of committing offences punishable under Section 323, 324 and 326 r/w 
D Section 149 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD.I.I. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of 
E the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing 
appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to 
review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an 
order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate Court, where 
the judgment of the trial Court is based on evidence and the view taken 
F is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial 
Court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate Court will 
also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of 
the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. 
Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with 
the decision of the trial Court. (206-F-G-HI 
G 
Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, 120021 10 SCC 46112, referred to. 
1.2. Though the Trial Court referred to the evidence of the eye-
witnesses, it chose to disbelieve them merely on account of minor 
inconsistencies in their evidence, relatiag to the exact site of occ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.