LexM.C. ALI AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2010] 4 S.C.R. 526 M.C. ALI AND ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 499 of 2002) APRIL 13, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SUFUNDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 307, 149, 34 - Murder of one C and grievous injuries to others allegedly on account of religious enmity - Acquittal by trial court disbelieving prosecution story - High Court setting aside acquittal and ordering conviction under ss.302, 307, 149, 34 - Correctness of - Held: High Court erred in interfering with the order of D acquittal recorded by trial Court - The sequence of events and the evidence were meticulously examinea' by the Trial Court - Trial Court noticed that the incident took place in dark, but no torches were recovered from the accused - The evidence of injured prosecution witness PW1 was not believed as his E behaviour appeared wholly unnatural - PW2 was present when police reached scene of incident but his statement was not recorded - Names of accused were me·ntioned in the First Statement but not in the inquest report recorded later in time - There was no explanation for injuries suffered by the F accused - Even the witnesses were interested witnesses and could not be believed in the absence of independent corroboration - Findings recorded by trial court were neither perverse nor unreasonable - Conviction set aside - Evidence - Interested witness. G Prosecution case was that PW-5, his; family and close relatives were believer of a particular soct in the muslim community and were socially boycotlted by the large section of the community. This created frequent conflicts H 526 M.C. ALI AND ANR. v. STATE OF KERALA 527 in the locality between the two groups. PW-5 brought A PW-1 and deceased from a different place to work in his fields. PW-1 and deceased were residing in the house of PW-5. On S0.1.1994, PW-5 received information about the injuries suffered by the son of his brother CW9. Due to the tension prevailing in the locality between the two B groups of the community, PW-5 asked PW1 and the deceased to accompany his son PW-2 to visit the house of CW9. At 9.15 p.m., they proceeded towards the house of CW9 through paddy fields, holding torches in their hands. A group of 15 persons was standing at tile end c of the paddy fields. The group also had torches in their hands. They flashed torches on them. Accused persons were in possession of M01 weapon, knives and sticks. They suddenly attacked PW-1, 2 and the deceased. A1 to A4 inflicted cuts on the neck of the deceased and as a 0 result he fell down. A-1 to A~6 again attacked deceased. PW-1 ran from the spot to save himself, and took shelter in the house of CW-9. PW-2 who also suffered injuries, ran for his life and reached the house of CW9. As deceased did not reach the house of CW-9, PW-1 along E with the son of CW9 went to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased lying dead. PW-5 also heard a lot of noise from the side of parldy field. He went towards the paddy field and on the way he saw accused 1 to 4, 7, 9, and 11 to 13. All of them F possessed knife and sticks. Fearing attack PW-5 ran towards his house. PW-8, the Head Constable registered FIR at 00.30 hours on 31.1.1994. On that day morning, it was sent to G the Magistrate who signed it at 3.30 p.m. Trial court did not believe the prosecution story and acquitted all the accused. High Court set aside the acquittal and ordered conviction under Sections 302, 307, 49 and 34 IPC. Hence these appeals. H 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 4 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. If two reasonable co,nclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of 8 acquittal. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the presumption of innocence of the accused. [Para 44) [556- 8) Antar Singh v. State of M.P. (197'9) 1 SCC 79; Chandrappa v. State of Kamataka 2007 (4) SCC 415; Kali C Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 sec 808, rellied on. 1.2. The incident took place in the dark. The Trial Court noticed that none of the torches were recovered or produced by any of the concerned persons. There was 0 also no moon light. In such circumstances, the recognition of the six accused could not bie possible. The Trial Court had meticulously examined E!ach and every issue. It also noticed that there was anticipation of trouble otherwise there was no occasion for PW2 to be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.