LexRAM CHANDER AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~J
'
257
RAM CHANDER AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
Mdy 12, 1983
[V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND V. BALAKRISHN'A ERADI, JJ.]
Crlminal Procedure-Appeal against acquittal-While reversing acquittal
High Court !Ja:. to deal vo!ith each one of the reasons which prompted trial court to
rl!c'Ofd acquittal. ,
The appellants were tried along with one other person for offences under
ss. 302 and 323 read with s. 34, I.P.C., as also under ss. 218 and 342, J.P.C_.,
on allegations that they had taken one Balwant Singh into custody, tortured
him to death and thereafter created false evidence with a view to e'scape from
legal punishment in connection with tl)e murder of Balwant Singh. The Sessions
Judge acquitted all the accused after coming to the conclusion that the prose-
cution story was highly improbable. He dealt with the· prosecution evidence ·
elaborately and gave substantial reasons for rejecting the same.
·
In the appeal preferred by the State, the High Court reversed the acquittal
and convicted and sentenced the appellants without dealing with or discussing
the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for acquitting them. The High Court
was principally influenced by the nature of injuries that had been noticed on
the dead body at the time of autopsy. Based on th~ injuries found on the soles
and buttocks of the deceased the High Court came to the conclusion that the
deceased had. been given a sound beating while he was in police custody. The
High Court mentioned that its conclusion had been strengthened by the fact
that appeUant No, 2 had, while preparing· the inquest report, made a deliberate
effort to minimise the number of injuries sustained by the deceased inasmuch
as in column No. 10 thf'reof, injuries on five different parts of the body had
been mentioned without giving the actual number of injuries in those parts,
while according to the doctor's post mortem report there w¢re 33 external
injuries.
Allowing the appea),
HELD : The duty of the High Court while dealing with the appeal
against acquittal was quite clear. It should have dealt with each one of the
reasons which prompted the trial court to record the acquittal and should have
pointed out how, if at all, those r.easons were wrong or incorrect. Without
undertaking such exercise the High Court could not reverse the acquittal.
.
.
• {267 A-B)
The High Court was clearly in error in solely [relying upon the nature of
some: or the injuries for drawing the conclusion that the c;J~ceasec;J ptust havo
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
B
J •
I
, '
I ·.,
.
I .
:.1
I
( :
' ..
f:.
r~.
t~ .
:·! : . '
' I
·I .
.1
..
~
i ..
'
r.: .
'
I .
I
l·
( '
.
t~
~;
· I ·
:
f
·t
!
: f
· ..
; I
, j
.1'
I
.; .. ..
• I
i
H
•
'/
.If
'
·l
B
G
...
D
. J
E
_.
F
~5.8
H983) 3 S.C.R •
. SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S
. ·-...
been.nssnultcd by the appellant in c~1 ~ tody.
~n ~oing so, the H igh Court
indulged in coojcctures and surmises:;. There . were only two injuries which
could 'properly be regarded as injuries on. the soles of the two feet of the ·
deceased whicH may be indicative of the police using third degree methods but
the injuries on the buttocks could not be indicative of user of third degree .
methods. Apart from injurieS on' the soles and th.e ·buttocks, there were other: ·
injuries on ·several other parts of the body which could not be regarded as being
necessarily consi~tent with the assault on the deceased only in police custody.
The criticism made against appellant No: 2 that he made deliberate attempt
to minimise the injuries sustained by the deceased while writing column No. 10
of the inquest report also cannot be a'cccptcd. · Jt is' quite possible that he may
not llave noticed all the injuries or, even afl~r · noticing them, he may not bave
mentioned in detail all tne injuries tfia~ WCJ C lJrCSCJ;lt on 'the dead body at the
time of the inquest. · In any event it cnnnot be forgotten that he has broadly
indicated five parts of the body on which it has bc:cn stated severn I mjuries
were noticed. His only fault is thot the actual number of injuries were not
mentioned but from this nlone it will be ·difficult to impute the motive that he
bad deliberately done so with a view to minimise the number of injuries
iustained by the deceased, [2.66 B-HJ
. •
··
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION ·: Criminal Appeal No. 584
. of 1976. · .. · · · · · ·
. · · ·
'.' '
. · · · ·
·
Appen1 From the JudgmeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.