LexSAMBASIVAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A, SAMBASIVAN AND ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA MAY 8, 1998 B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMAD QUADRI, JJ.] Criminal Law : Penal Code 1860-Section 302 r!w Section 34, Section 307 rlw Section C 34-Prosecution case corroborated by medical evidence-Conviction sustained Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Sections 378 and 386-Appeal against acquittal-Scope of Powers of the Appellate Court-Held-Appellate Court must record its conclusions on the question whether the findings of the Trial D Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable-Then reappraise evidence-If view of the Trial Court wholly erroneous-Interference by High Court justified Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3-Jnterested witnesses-Witnesses belonging to rival group-Held-Ur.ion rivalry not a' ground to brush aside E their evidence-testimony consistent and truthfal. On the morning of April 21, 1983, accused A-21 and A-22 took some bombs to a by lane at Vetthukuzhi near the Pappanamcode Industrial Estate. Thereafter with common object of causing voluntary hurt and causing death F of the members of the rival union, the complainant, A-I to A-20 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at 10.45 a.m. and proceeded to the Industrial Estate where PWs I ~o 5 and 7 among others were relaxing on the platform in front of General Metals as there was no work on that date. After reaching there A-1, A-2 and A-3 threw bombs at PW-I, PW-2 and the G deceased who suffered injuries and other accused threw bricks and beat up other members of the complainant group with sticks. The deceased and PW- 1 were taken to Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum where, deceased viz. Nanukuttan was declared dead at about l l.15 a.m. The trial Court acquitted all the 22 accused. On appeal by State, the H High Court found A-I to A-3 guilty of various offences. 280 • ... SAMBAS IV AN v. ST A TE 281 Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the A eyes witnesses PWs 1 to 5 and PW-7 were interested witnesses, that throwing of bombs in its very nature was so sudden that it was not possible that the witness could have actually seen the same, that the independent witnesses PWs 8 & 9 did not say that they have seen any of the accused persons at the place of occurrence and that where two views are possible, the High Court in appeal against acquittal, ought not to have upset the acquittal of the B appellants by the Trial Court. Dismissing the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1 Interference by the High Court in the appeal against C acquittal of the appellant and recording the finding of their conviction for . offences under Section 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on consideration of the evidence, is justified. [288-H] 2.1 The Powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal D are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the Appellate Court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order E of acquittal. (284-E-F] Romesh Babula! Doshi v. State of Gujarat, [1996] 9 SCC 225, relied on. 2.2. The approach of the Court while considering the validity of the F judgment of an Appellate Court which has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and whether the judgment of the Appellate Court is free from those infirmities. [285-E-F] G 3.1 This is not a case where two reasonable views on examination of the evidence on record are possible and so the one which supports the accused should be adopted. The view taken by the trial court can hardly be said to be a view on proper consideration of evidence much less a reasonable view. [288-G] H )>- 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R. A 4.1. Merely because eyes witnesses belong to the complainant group, it cannot be said that their testimony can not be given due weight. Therefore, ~- ~ union rivalry would not be a ground to brush aside their evidence after having found t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.