STATE OF U.P.versusANIL SINGH

                            STATE OF U.P.
                                                                               A
                                 v.
                             ANIL SINGH

                           AUGUST 26, 1988

       [G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.]                                B

      Constitutiion of India, 1950: Article 136--Under article 136 the
scope of appeal very limited--:--Even if two views reasonabiy possible              ·,, ·
court will not interfere with order of acquittal-Court will also not
hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is perverse.

      The respondent. Anil Singh was tried for the murder of Keshav C
Kiimar, his erstwhile friend and classmate. The Trial Court convicted.
the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High
Court doubting the credibility of the eye-witnesses, discarded the pro-
secution case and acquitted the respondent.
                                                                        D
      Allowing the appeals, it was,

       HELD: (1) The scope of appeals under Article 136 of the Con-
stitution is undisputedly very limited. This Court· does not exercise its
overriding powers under Article 136 to reweigh the evidence. Even if
two views are reasonably possible, one indicating conviction and other         E
acquittal, this Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal. But
the Court will not hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is perverse in the
sense that no reasonable person would have come tQ that con~lusion, or
if the acquittal is manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. [6l6'AJ
                                                       1




      State of U.P. v. Yashoda Nandan Gupta, AIR 1974 SC,i53 and               F
State of A. P. v. R. Anjaneyulu, AIR 1982 SC 1598, referred to.

      (2) The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose
before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution
version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occ11rrence have not
been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corrobora-      G,
lion by independent witnesses if thecase made out is otherwise true and
acceptable. (617B-D]

      (3) It is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst
witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated
version. The Court should made an effort to disengage the truth from           H
                                    611
    612          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A falsehood and to sift the gr:i.in from the chaff rather than taking an easy
  course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case
  as untrue. [617C-D; 617FJ

         Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC and Abdul
    Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 31, referred to.

          (4) Invariably the witnesses add embroidery to the prosecution
    story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to
    throw the case overboard, if there is a ringoftrnth in the main. [617Gl

           (5) It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from
     the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or
c    falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnes-
    ses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a
     criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge
     also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as
     important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to
D   'perform. [6i7G-H; 618A]

          (6) The Court gave its anxious consideration to all material facts
    and circumstances of the case and came to the conclusion that the
    decision of the High Court could not be supported. [622C]

B        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 671-672 of 1980.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.1980 of the Allahabad
    High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2340 of 1978.

p       A.N. Mulla, Yogeswar Prasad, Mrs. Sarla Chand, Girish Chand,
    Ms. Rachna Joshi and D. Bhandari Advocate (N.P.} for the
    Appellant.

        Frank Anthony, J.K. Das, J.R. Das and S.K. Patri for the
    Respondent.
0
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. The State of U.P. and the
    informant have preferred these appeals with special leave, challenging
    the on;ler of acquittal recorded by the Allahabad High Court in Crimi-
H   nal Appeal No. 2340 of 1978. Anil Singh, the common re~pqrident in
              STATE OF U.P. v. ANIL SINGH (SHETTY, J.]            613

the appeals was tned for the murder of Keshav Kumar ('KK') by the
                                                                         A
Court of Session (Non-Metropolitan area), Kanpur. He was convicted
and sentenced to imprisonment for life. But on appeal, he was acquii-
ted by the High Court.
                                                            '
      The prosecution story of the occurrence may be stated at· some
length.                                                                  B

      The respondent-accused and KK were.almost of equal age. They
are friends as well as class mates. They were also co-accused in some
minor criminal cases. The accused was of violent temperament. He
used to indulge in criminal activities. His father sent him to his
maternal grandfather's house at Faizabad for being better taken care
of. But he used to visit often his native place i.e. Pukhrayan, where c
KK was residing. The accused was in the-habit of demanding money
from KK. At the time of Diwali festival of the year 1977, the accused
asked KK to pay Rs.2,500. He wanted to purchase a revolver. It is
alleged that he even threatened KK that he would be killed if the
amount was.not paid by November 14, 1977. November 14, is a rejoic- D
ing day for children. It is a birth day anniversary of Pt. Jawahar Lal
Nehru whi:J was the first Prime Minister of this Country. The children
all over called him and still remember him as "Cha Cha Nehru". Every
year his birth day is celebrated as "Children Day" throughout the
country. On that 14 November 1977, local Jaycees Club arranged Bal-
Mela and cultural programme. It was arranged in the Normal School F
compound 'With sweet-meet and chat-shops. Bal-Mela went on till 7
p.m. The cultural programme was to commence at 8 p'.m. In between.
KK was murdered.

      It is said that the accused and KK came-to Bal-Mela.- From there
the accused went along with KK to a nearby place, that is the varandah   F
of Dr. Diwedi'.s shop. There he assaulted KK with knife. Prahlad
Kumar who is the eldest brother of KK and some others rushed to the
spot. But the accused could not be caught. Nor KK could be saved.
The accused was chased but he.ran away by brandishing his knife. The
fatally injured KK was seen walking a few steps and falling down in a
'Nali'. Prahlad Kumar lifted him and carried up to some distance for     G
medical attention. But OI). the way near Khazanchi hotel, KK
succumbed to injuries.

     Prahlad Kumar carried the·dead body of his brother to his house.
So many people followed him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and
Tehsildar who were the guests of honour at the function also went to H
       614          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

       ' house. Ramesh Chander Dube a social worker and politician was
    A his
      very much there. Prahlad Kumar wrote a report giving fairly all
      particulars of the occurrence. He took a scooter and went to Police
      Station Bhoginpur which is just two miles away from his house.
      Ramesh Chander Dube accompanied him. They lodged the report at
      9.15 p.m. at the Police Station.
    B
            Kaushal Chand Tripathi Sub-Inspector was then incharge of the
      Police Station. He was present when the report was lodged. He got the
      case registered. He immediately went to the scene of occurrence. He'
      also visited the house of the deceased. He found the dead body lying
      on a bench. He conducted the inquest proceedings. Ex. Ka. 1 is the
      inquest report. He sent the dead body with Constables Aley Hasan
    C and Trijugi Narain for post-mortem. Thereafter he recorded state-
      ments of persons. He examined witnesses including Chottey Lal (PW
      2). In the course of interrogation of persons, he came across a boy
      called Raju. He took his statement who has been later examined as
      PW 3 in the case. On the following morning at 5.45 a.m., the In-
    D vestigating Officer again went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared
      a sketch map Ex.    Ka. 13. He found blood stains on the.furniture lying
      in the varandah of Dr. Diwedi's shop. He got removed two pieces of a
      bench (Ex. 3 & 4) and one piece of table (Ex. 5) which were stained
      with blood. A memo Ex. Ka. 15 was prepared in respei:t thereof.
      Similarly, he collected blood stained and unstained earth from the Nali
    E (Ex. 6 & 7). A memo Ex. Ka. 16 was also prepared in evidence
      thereof. He also collected blood stained earth from the Patti under the
      Memo Ex. Ka. 14.

              The Investigating Officer then directed his officers to search and
        arrest the accused. But accused was not traceable in the town. The
    p proceedings were initiated under s. 82/83 Criminal Procedure Code.
        On 17 November 1977, he obtained warrant of arrest (Ex. Ka. 17).
        The Sub-Inspector Sita! Prasad was deputed to execute the warrant.
        On 21 November 1977 proclamation and warrant of attachment (Ex.
        Ka. 18 & Ka. 19) were obtained and executed properly. The property
        of accused was attached under Memo Ex. Ka. 20. It was only thereaf-
    <!i ter the accuse(! appeared in the Police Station Kotwali. On 26
        November 1971 'he was arrested at Kotwali.

            Before the trial court, the prosecution in support of the case
      examined Prahlad Kumar (PW 1), Chhotey Lal (PW 2) and Raju (PW
      3) as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Rest of the evidence of prosecu-
    H tion is more or less formal. On the other side, Ramesh Cha_nder Dut?e
•
              STATE OF U.P. v. ANIL SINGH ISHETfY, J.]             615

(DW 1), Karan Singh (DW 2), Balak Das (DW 3) and Shri Prasad              A
(DW 4) were examined as defence witnesses.

      The trial Court upon consideration of all the material on record
accepted the case made out by the prosecution. The trial Court con-
victed the accused for the murder of KK and sentenced him to impri-
sonment for life.                                                         B

      The High Court of Allahabad set aside the conviction and sent-
ence, and acquitted the accused. The High Court first surveyed some
broad aspects of the case and reached the conclusion that the relations
between the family of accused and KK were strained. The High Court
then considered the evidence of eye-witnesses and disbelieved them by
attaching one or the other doubt against their credibility. Prahlad
                                                                          c
Kumar (PW 1) was disbelieved on the grounds: He.did not disclose the
name of person who first informed him about the assault on KK. He
did not disclose the name of accused to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
and Tehsildar when they came to his house. He did not ask them to call
the Police and get the accused arrested. The High Court observed:         D

                 "The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is incharge of a Sub-
           Division and has to maintain law and order. The Police
           ordinarily acts under his directions. In these circumstances
           had Prafilad Kumar seen the occurrence and the assailant
           he should have immediately made a compl.aint to the Sub-       E
           Divisional Magistrate who came up soon aftiir the occur-
           rence. The silence of Prahlad Kumar in this respect is
           clearly indicative of the fact that he had neither seen any
           part of the occurrence nor he had seen the assailant.

     Chhotey Lal (PW 2) was characterised as a chance witness. His        F
presence at the place of occurrence was doubted with the following
observations:

                 "Another fact which is conspicuous in his statement is
           that he and his 2 companions left the market at the time of
           sun set for their village. In the middle of November the G
           time of setting in of the sun is about 5.30 p.m. There is dusk
           for about 45 minutes. Thus it appears that these three
           persons left the market if not at about .5.30 p.m., then
           alteast at about 5.15 p.m. They could easily cover distance
           of 2 miles in an hour's time. Therefore, by 7.15 p.m. they -
           could have easily reached their village. In this circums- H
     616         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A               tance it does not stand to reason that they Jett the market
                at 7 .30 or 7.45 p.m. From this aspect of the matter the
                version given by Chhotey Lal about his presence at the time
                of occurrence is not fee from doubt."

         The testimony of Raju (PW 3) was rejected by stating that he was
B a child witness. that he did not figure in the FIR as an eye-witness, and
   his explanation for his presence at the spot was not reasonable. The
  .High Court said:

                       "He has stated that his elder brother had told him to
                come up early and that on account of fear of being beaten
                by his brother he left the chabutara and proceeded towards
                his house. It will be noticed that he had left the -Mela area
                with his Thela at about 7.30 p.m. It is thereafter that he
                again returned to the Mela area he took 10-15 minutes in
                shifting the chairs from the place of his shop to the dais of
                the drama. It is evident that just 15 minutes later he left the
                Mela area. Assuming for a moment that his brother had
                told him to come early it did not mean that he would return
                to the house within less than half an hour. Moreover, he
                did not tell the Investigating Officer that he left the Mela so
                soon on account of fear of his brother. We are, therefore,
                of the opinion that Raju has not given a reasonable expla-
IE              nation of his leaving the Mela area within about 15 minutes
                of his keeping the chairs near the place of drama. T!iere-
                fore, his presence at the time of assault cannot- be
                believed."

           With these and other conclusions, ihe High Court discarded the
JI: prosecution=·
           Hence these appeals.

        The scope of appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution is
  undisputedly very much limited. This Court does not exercise its over-
G riding powers under Article 136 to reweigh the evidence. The Court
  does not disturb the concurrent finding of facts reached upon proper
  appreciation. Even if two views are reasonably possible, one indicating
  conviction and other acquittal, this Court will not interfere with the
  order of acquittal [See: (i) State of U.P. v. Yashoda Nandan Gupta,
  AIR 1974 SC 753 and (ii) State of A.I'. v. P. Anjaneyulu, AIR 1982 SC
H 1598] But this Court will not hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is.
              STATE OF U.P. v. ANIL SINGH [SHETTY, J.]                617

perverse in the sense that no reason.able person would have come to          A
that conclusion, or if the acquittal is manifestly illegal or grossly
unjust.

      On late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals
against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution
version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent          B
witnesses,_ or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by
witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not
examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed
out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes.
The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before
the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version
only on the ground that all witnesss to the occurrence have not been
                                                                             c
examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration
by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and
acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added
 by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a
tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by          D
false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to
observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC, the
Privy Council had this to say (at 628):

                  "That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that
            a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it
            appears to be doubtful or is clearly unture, since there is,
            on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up
            a good case by false or exaggerated evidence."

      In Abdul Gani v. State of Madya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 31
Mahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts       F
to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discard-
ing the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court
should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift
the grain from the chaff.

      It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add            G
em bro.Wery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbe-
lieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in
the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be
rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth
from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the incon-
sistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in   H
    618         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [!988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

    the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not pre-
A
    side over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is
    punJshed. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not
    escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which
    the Judge has to perform.

B         In the instant case, the trial Judge and the High Court have
    accepted the fact that the report to Police was lodged by Prahlad
    Kumar (PW I) at 9.15 p.m. That means that the report disclosing the
    name of accused did reach the Police Station immediately after the
    murder. This is a positive finding in favour of prosecution. The report
    contains all particulars including the motive for the crime and the
    manner in which it was committed. It gives us the names of eye-
c   witnesses as well. It also gives a clear picture as to what KK did after
    the attack and how the accused made good his escape.

          It was argued by Shri Frank Anthony, learned senior counsel for
    the accused that it would be impossible for any person to prepare such
D   an exhaustive report and lodge the same before the Police so soon
    after the occurrence. According to counsel, the report must hav5 been
    prepared after the inquest and non-mentioning of the time of despatch
    of FIR to the Court would lend support to his submission. We carefully
    examined the material on record. We are unable to accept the submis-
    sion of learned counsel. In the first place, PW 1 was not specifically
E   cross examined on this matter. The Court cannot therefore, presume
    something adverse to the witness unless his attention is specifically
    drawn to. Secondly, the records contain unimpeachable evidence to
    the contrary. Apart from the records of the Police Station, the
    Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka. 7) to which Ramesh Chandra Duty (DW 1)
    has admittedly appended his signature shows that the reporting time of
p   the crime was 9.15 p.m. OW 1 accompanied Prahlad Kumar to Police
    Station co lodge the report though he later defected to the defence. He
    is a political figure and social worker. Highly qualified too. He would
    not have signed the Panchayatnama if the statement therein were not
    true and correct.

G         Equally there cannot be any dispute about the place of commis-
    sion of crime. It was committed in front of Dr. Diwedi's shop. Portions
    of the blood stained furniture have been collected from the place (Ex.
    Ka. 15 & 14). It has been proved by the evidence of the Investigating
    Officer (PW 7). His evidence remains unchallenged.

H         If we critically examine the evidence of PW I there is nothing to
              STATE OF U.P. v. ANIL SINGH [SHElTY, J.]             619

doubt the correctness of the version given by him. He was one of the      A
persons who organised the programme. His presence at the place was
therefore, quite natural. He has testified to the presence of KK going
with the accused at the Bal-Mela. It is. an evidence of the last seen
together. It is an important piece of evidence. PW 1 could not be
disbelieved on the gound that he did not mention the name of accused
to Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar. Nor his evidence could be     B
doubted on the ground that he did not seek the assistance of the said
officers to secure the police help. It is unthinkable that the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar were not kept informed about the
assailant. The crime was committed. at a public place crowed by
persons. They had assembled there to witness the cultural programme.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate cancelled the cultural programme be-        C
cause of commission of the crime. The people would have naturally
asked why the programme was cancelled? Who murdered whom and
why? It is a natural human tendency in such situations. The news of the
murder must have spread like a wild fire. The name of accused must
have been known to everybody gathered there. It is unfortunate 'that
the High Court overlooked these circumstances.                            D

      The other reason given by the High Court to discard the evidence
of PW 1 is that he did not disclose the name of person who first
informed him about the murderous attack on KK. This reasoning of
the High Court apparently reveals a lack of experience of man and
matters. There was a big gathering at the Normal School Compound.         E
The people were waiting to see the cultural· programme. It was to
commence at 8.00 PM. The time was hearing. PW 1 was at the stage as
jie was one of the organisers. He was then informed that his brother
kK was being assaulted by the accused. The first impulse of PW 1 must
have been to rush to the scene of occurrence and not to remember the
name or identity of person who informed him. The place of occurrence      F
was hardly about 25 paces from the stage set for cultural programme.
PW 1 must have rushed to the place in a minute. There must have been
some altercation between the accused and KK. It could have taken
some time. PW 1 must have reached within that time. The medical
evidence supports this version. There are as many as eight incised
wounds on KK. The doctor has stated that KK could have survived           G
10-15 minutes after the assault and moved 15-20 paces. PW 1 has
stated that KK went towards Nali and fell down. He along with Dhruv
lifted KK from the Nali and carried him towards the clinic of Dr.
Mishra. Even the defence witness Ramesh Chander has admitted that
PW' 1, Dhruv and others were present at the Nali where KK was lying
injured. It is, therefore, quite unreasonable to hold that PW I could     H
not have seen the assault on KK.
    620         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A         It was, however, urged that there was no light in front of the
    shop of Dr. Diwedi and PW 1 or other witnesses could not have
    identified the accused. Shiv Prasad Mishra (OW 4) has been produced
    to testify that the street mercury light was not burning on that da,: We
    may accept the evidence of DW 4, but we cannot accept that there was
    no lighting arrangement at the public function. The Sub-Divisional
B   Magistrate and Tehsildar were present at the function. Bal Mela com-
    mencing at 7.00 PM and cultural programme at 8.00 PM could not
    have been arranged in darkness. Theprosecution witnesss have stated
    that apart from the lighting arrangement at the function, there was an
    electric light in front of the shop of Dr. Diwedi. It is also o.n record that
    there was another light near the Khazanchi hotel. Quite natural, the
    area must have been well-lit fer the function. That apart, the accused
c   was not a stranger to the place. He was at any rate familiar to PW 1
    'and his family members. There was, therefore, no scope for any mis-
    taken identity of the aq:used.

          The reason given by the High Court for disbelieving the evidence
0   of Chhotey Lal PW 2 is fanciful. PW 2 is a resident of the village
    Astiya. The village is at a distance of two miles from Pukhrayan town.
    It will be seen from his evidence that he along with Bai jnath and
    Manuwa mahara j-all residents of the same village had gone to the
    town for their requirements. PW 2 wanted iron nails, Manuwa
    required vegetables and Baijnath had to purchase iron rods. After
E    purchasing the respective goods, they proceeded towards their village.
    When they reached the tehsil, they came across 3-4-5 boys who told
     them that there was Bal Mela and cultural programme in the Normal
    School. It was natural for them to stay on to see the cultural pro-
    gramme. They came to their grain dealer. They kepnheir articles at
    his place and after some time they started towards the Normal School
F   at about 7.30 or 7.45 PM. When they _were approaching the Khazanchi
    hotel, they saw the accused assaulting KK. The evidence of PW 2
    receives corroboration from PW 1. He figures as an eye-witness in the
    FIR. He cannot, therefore, be categoried as a chance witness.

           The accused tried to give negative evidence to show that the
G   market in Pukhrayan town to every Monday was closed and, there-
    fore, the presence of PW 2 was not probable. PW 2 has admitted that
    the market used to remain 'closed on every Monday, but the general
    merchandise and hardware shops are not closed. In our opinion, there
    is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 2.

H         The third eye-witness in this case is Raju PW 3. It seems to us
               STATE OF U.P. v. ANIL SINGH [SHETIT, J.]                621

that he is an important witness. He had the courage to come forward to        A
depose in favour of prosecution in spite of his father going as a defence
witness. The trial court upon preliminary examination has opined that
he is an intelligent boy and able to give rational answers to questions
pul to him. He was then a student of class IV in the Normal School.
His father opened a chat-shop at the Bal Mela. PW 3 was in that shop.
There is no disput on this fact. According to him, after Bal Mela he          B
arranged the chairs of his shop in front of the stage set for cultural
programme. He met some of his friends and sat at the chabutara by the
side of the stage. While leaving to his hous~. he saw a crowd by the
side of Khazanchi hotel and stopped there to find out what was hap-
pening. It is quite natural for boys to peep into the crowd. He has
deposed that he saw the accused hitting KK with knife, but out of fear        C
he ran from that place. His house is situated at a distance of about JOO
yards from the Mela ground. To cover that distance one cannot take
much time. Nor it is necessary to give any sufficient cause for his
presente at the place. One should bring to bear the knowledge and
experience of life. Since he was a student of the Normal School, his
presence at the place was natural. His name might not have been               D
mentioned in the FIR, but that is understandable. PW 1 might not
have remembered him or noticed him. He was in a hurry to rush to the
spot to save his brother.                                     •

      The Investigation Officer has deposed that when he started inter-
rogating witnesses at the spot, he came across Raju who said that he          E
had seen the incident. His statement was immediately recorded. In the
Court, Raju has been cross examined at the great length. But nothing
substantial has been elicited to shake his credibility. What is significant
to note in this context is the attempt of the father (DW 3) to destroy
the credibility of the son. His father as a defence witness has stated
that after the Mela they had returned to their house at about 6.30PM          p
and thereafter they did not go out of the house for the whole night.
the trial court after carefully examining the testimony of DW 3 has
observed that he is absolutely unreliable. It has held that the testimony
of OW 3 that he alongwith ·his son remained in the house after 6.30 PM
and slept at about 8.00 or 8.30 PM is unworthy of belief since their
house is admittedly at a close distance from the Normal School Com-           G
pound. This observation of the trial court is not unjustified.

     The post crime conduct of the accused cannot also be lost sight
of. The plea of alibi has not been pursued. It has been proved that the
accused was not available in the town after the occurrence till 24
November 1977. It is on record that the accused could not be traced           H
    622         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A   and proceedings under sec. 82/83 Cr. Penal Code were initiated. The
    warrant of arrest issued against the accused returned unserved. There-
    after proclamation was made and his property was attached. That was
    on 23 November 1977. He appeared on the next day in the Police
    Station Kotwali. That has been proved by the general diary entry (Ex.
    Ka. 22) of the said Police Station.
B
        It may be noted that the investigation in this case was conducted
   without loss of time. Since the murder was committed at a public place
   where the Sub-Divisional magistrate and Tehsildar were present, the
   Investigating Officer must have been keen to arrest the accused
   immediately. That was perhaps the reason why he took proceedings
C ·under sec. 82/83 Cr.P.C. We must really appreciate the proper and
   prompt investigation made in this case.

         We have given our anxious consideration to all material facts and
    circumstances of the case. It seems to us, that the decision of the High
    Court cannot be supported.
D
         In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside judgment of the
    High Court and rstore that of the trial court. The conviction and sen-
    tence awarded aginst the accused are restored. He shall undergo the
    remaining part of sentence.
E         R.S.S.                                          Appeals allowed,