RAGHUNATH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 13-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAGHUNATH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 13, 2002 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148, 302, 325, 323, 452 and 436 read 
with Section 149-Conviction by trial Court-Upholding by High Court-On 
C appeal held, since prosecution suppressed facts and failed to establish case 
beyond reasonable doubt conviction and sentence of the accused set aside. 
Criminal Trial-Failure to explain injuries on accused by prosecution-
Ejfect of-Discussed. 
D 
Criminal Law-If two views are possible one in favour of accused and 
other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must be accepted. 
Practice and procedure-Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts 
below-Interference with-Held: High Court without re-appraisal of evidence 
merely affirming findings of trial court-Hence interference of Supreme Court 
E is justified. 
According to the prosecution, there was a rift between the 
complainant and the accused group. On the fateful day accused armed 
with lathi and stones entered the house of K by breaking open the door. 
Accused A inflicted lathi blow on the head of K, while other accused 
F injured the other members of complainant party. All this took place in 
the ball of 6 feet radius. Prosecution witnesses also came there and two of 
them recei".ed injuries when they tried to intervene. One of the accused 
exhorted the other accused to burn the members of complainant party. 
He was injured by complainant party in self-defence. Accused were 
convicted under sections 148, 302, 325, 323, 452 and 436 IPC read with 
.G section 149 IPC. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended it was quite unusual that the complainant party 
sitting in a Poli allowed the accused party to break open and let them enter 
the house without any resistance from them, being mute spectators; that 
H it was inherently improbable to accommodate complainant party 
130 
J 
RAGHUNATHv. STATEOFHARYANA 
131 
numbering seven and accused party numbering nine in a hall of six feet A 
radius and wielding the lathis of six feet long and raining blows at the 
same time; that the conduct of complainant party \Vas unusual; that the 
version of PW-2 before the Court was an irnprovement on the basis of 
medical ~vidence. 
Respondents contended that this Court would not interfere with the B 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial court and upheld by High 
Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. In the facts and circumstances of the instant. case, C 
prosecution did not come up with a true story. It suppressed the facts and 
failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is now well settled 
pri"nciple of law that if two vie,vs are possible, one in favour of accused 
and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must 
be accepted. Therefore, the convictions and sentences of appellants are D 
set aside. [149-A-B] 
2.1. It would be inherently improbable that the accused nine in 
number, wielded la this of six feet long and raining blows at the same time 
in a hall within the radius of six feet with seven members of the 
complainant party totaling 16 persons in the room. [137-C] 
E 
2.2. The blood stain is of human blood is not conclusive evidence that 
it belongs to the blood group of deceased since there is no evidence on 
record to show that the blood stained earth removed from the hall, sent 
for FSL, bears a certificate that the blood is a human blood and belongs 
to a particular group same as blood group of deceased. Also there is F 
defence version ·that accused No.I was kidnapped and taken inside the 
house of deceased forcibly, wherein he was beaten up by complainant party 
and received several _bodily injuries and as such the blood so collected 
could be the blood of the accused. 1138-C-D] 
2.3. It is in evidence that the accident took place in village and the G 
two police stations fall on the way from village to the Hospital. 
Comple.inant party did not stop at the police stations and proceeded 
straight to the Hospital. In the ordinary circumstances, it is quite 
imperative that complainant party could have stopped at the police station, 
sought necessary help and also given the first hand information to the H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A police. It is also the evidence of the doctor, that the injuries suffered by 
complainant party were simple in nature except that of deceased. 
Therefore, there were no 

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