Holding

The High Court's acquittal was unsustainable; the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction and life sentence.

Summary

The deceased, a witness in a murder case, was shot dead at his home by the accused who sought to silence him. The trial court, relying on eye‑witness testimony and a post‑mortem report showing multiple gunshot injuries, convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court, however, acquitted them, mistakenly concluding that only a single gunshot injury had occurred and treating the incident as a "hit‑and‑run". On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to analyse the medical evidence, ignored the motive and the credibility of witnesses, and erred in its reasoning. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal, restored the conviction and sentence, and allowed the appeal (with the appeal against the deceased being abated).

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis that only one gunshot injury was inflicted, contrary to the post‑mortem evidence indicating multiple injuries.
Whether an appellate court may set aside an order of acquittal and restore a conviction when the judgment is perverse and unsupported by the evidence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 235(2), s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murderIPC Section 302common intentionacquittalappellate reviewpost‑mortem evidencemultiple injurieslife imprisonment

Judgment

A STATE OF U.P.
v.
NA WAB SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 3, 2004

B [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

Section 300-Murder-Acquittal-Appeal against-Accused persons
C came to the house of deceased and fired shots at him which resulted in his
death-Post-mortem report showed that deceased died ofgunshot '"injuries"-
Trial court convicted accused persons-However, High Court set aside the
conviction on the mistaken belief that deceased suffered only one gunshot
injury-Correctness of-Held: The medical report showed '"injuries" meaning
D thereby more than one injury-The High Court acquitted the accused persons
without analysing the evidence on record-Hence, judgment of High Court
unsustainable-Acquittal set aside.

The respondents-accused persons were involved in two murder cases.
The deceased was a witness in one of them and was constantly being \
E pressurized not to depose in that case by the respondents. On the fateful
night, the respondents came to the house of the deceased and shot at him
with a pistol resulting in his death. The post-mortem report indicated that
the deceased had died of gunshot injuries .

.The trial court found the respondents guilty of an offence under
F Section 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo
'"""1·-
. '
life imprisonment. However, the High Court concluded that it was a case
of 'hit and run', and that the deceased had suffered only one gunshot
injury. Accordingly, it acquitted the respondents. Hence the appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1. The High Court wrongly laid emphasis that only one
fire injury was caused. The medical report shows that the death took place 4
,
I

..
because of 'injuries' meaning thereby more than one injury. Keeping in
view the nature of the injuries suffered by the decease?, the same could

H 52
~
STATE OF U.P. v. NA WAB SINGH 53
not have also been caused by one shot. 161-G, H; 62-Aj A
1.2. The High Court has not assigned cogent or sufficient reasons
for disagreeing with the findings of the trial court. It arrived at certain
conclusions without .analysing the evidences on record. It is based on
surmises and conjectures. 162-DI
B
1.3. The High Court acquitted the accused persons without
analysing the evidence on record and in that view of the matter, the
impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 162-FI

.,._, Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh, 120031 2 Supreme 155, relied on .
c
2. The Trial Court upon critical examination of the evidence of the
f eyewitnesses had rightly concluded that they were truthful witnesses and
the respondents were present at the time of occurrence. Merely because
the witnesses happened to be the relatives of the deceased by itself cannot
be a ground to reject their testimonies. In view of the fact that the
occurrence took place at the dead of night, they were natural witnesses D
and were supposed to be present at the place of occurrence. 162-G, HI

3.1. It is not a case where two reasonable views arc possible. It is
also not a case where the findings recorded by the High Court arc fully
; supported by the evidence on record. The High Court proceeded absolutely
E
on a wrong premise that there had been only one fire injury, which is
contrary to the records. 163-F, G]

State of U.P. v. Premi, 12003 J 2 SCR 266, relied on.

3.2. The High Court being a court of first appeal was required to
F
.. consider and re-appreciate the evidence but it failed to do so and proceeded
to dispose of the appeal on general observations, which is impermissible.
163-G]

Narendera Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware, (2003) 5 SCC 488,
relied on.
G
4.1. It is well settled that when the reasoning of the High Court is

- ~ perverse, this Court may set aside the judgment of acquittal and restore
the judgment of conviction and sentence upon the accused. 164-A)

Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha, JT (2003) 8 SC 404, relied on. H
..,..
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) 2 S.C.R.

A 4.2. It is further well"settled that there is no embargo on the
appellate court to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal
is based. 164-A, Bl

Chanakya Dhibar v. State of West Bengal, (2003) 8 Supreme 884;
Surinder Singh v. State of UP., JT (2003) Supp. 1 SC 226; Corle S. Naidu
B v. State of A.P.. (2003) 8 Supreme 562 and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, (2003)
7 Supreme 780, relied on.

4.3. The High Court went wrong in passing a judgment of acquittal
reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court. It is wholly
C unsustainable. 164-CI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
114 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.96 of the Allahabad High
D Court in Crl. A. No. 248 of 1980. ·
C.D. Singh and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellant.

B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Vinay·Mohan Shan"!la, Mrs. Vipin Gupta
and Goodwill lndeevar for the Respondents

E The Judgment of the court was delivered by

S.8. SINHA, J. A judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad is in question in this appeal at the instance of the
State of U.P.

F The three respondents herein were charged for commission of an offence
under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of one Sri
Ram on I O/l l.6.1978 at about 2.00 a.m.

BACKGROUND FACT:

G The prosecution case, as appearing from the First Information Report,
is that the respondents together with one Ram Prakash (who is absconding)
came to the house of deceased about 2.00 a.m. in the night. The house of the
deceased· was a small one with a very small courtyard. At the time of
occurrence, there were five inmates in the house. Amrit Lal then aged about
-
H 12 years, son of the deceased and the first informant Ram Ratan aged 20
~
STATE OF U.P. v. NAWAB SINGH [SINHA, .I.] 55
years, brother-in-law of the deceased \\ere sleeping on one cot. Km. Kanth A
Shri, the unmarried sister of the deceased was sleeping on another cot. Renuka
Devi, wife of the deceased together with her 15 day's old baby was sleeping
on the third cot in the open courtyard of the house. The deceased was sleeping
on another cot in the courtyard under a shed (chhappar) near the doors of the
room and the kitchen. The house of Sri Ram had no shutter opening on the
side of the lane. An opening in the wall existed for coming out of the house B
in the lane. As Renuka Devi gave bi1th to a child only a few days back, a
.,. lantern was burning .

The accused persons at 2.00 a.m. on I 0.6.1978 trespassed into the
house. Ram Prakash and Natthu were said to have been armed with pistols
whereas Nawab and Peshkar were said to have been armed with lathis. The
c
parties were said to be in inimical terms.

It is contended that the accused persons were history sheeters. They
were involved in two murder cases. The deceased Sri Ram was a witness in
one of them. He had constantly been pressurized not to depose in that case D
by the accused persons. Ram Prakash together with the other accused persons
upon entering the cou1tyard of the house gave a threat to the deceased that
he would be killed if he deposed in the case of murder of Kedar. The deceased
is said to be awaken at that time and allegedly replied that he would make
) the same statement in the court which he had made before the investigating
officer. Hearing the conversation, the other inmates of the house awoke. Ram E
- Prakash is said to have fired his pistol at Sri Ram causing an abrasion on the
left side back middle whereafter respondent No. 2 Natthu fired a pistol shot
at Sri Ram which hit the deceased on the left side of the abdomen 21 cm.
below the left nipple. As a result of the injuries suffered thereby Sri Ram is
said to have died. Renuka Devi and Ram Ratan cried out for help whereupon F
they were also threatened. The entire incident took about 2-3 minutes
whereafter the accused persons left the place of occurrence. The accused
persons are said to have thereafter gone near the tubewell of the Het Ram
Pradhan where he and his brothers Har Nagar and Pati Ram were sleeping on
the roof of the kothri of the tubewell where an electric bulb of 250 watt was
burning. Hearing the sound of firing, the said persons were also said to have G
been seen by them. It is alleged that Ram Prakash and Natthu shouted at
'
.., •
Pradhan Het Ram stating that they had killed Sri Ram and if he dared to
depose in the case of murder of Kedar, he would also be put to death in the
same manner. Fearing assault at the hands of the accused and as they, being
not armed, did not come down from the rooftop. At about 5.00 a.m., however,
H
•
'

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A they are said to have gone near the viilage 'abadi' which is situated at about
one and a half furlongs. They came to the place of occurrence and found the
dead body of Sri Ram lying on the cot under the Chhapper. Ram Ratan
prepared a written report which was written by one Har Nagar Singh whereafter
the duo left the village on bicycle at 5.30 a.m. The police station is said to
be at a distance of 2 and Yi miles from the village. While Har Nagar Singh
B awaited outside the police station, Ram Ratan took the written report to the
police station and a formal First Information Report was lodged on the basis
thereof. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was submitted.
Whereas Nawab Singh could be arrested in the evening of 11.6.1978, the
other accused persons were not found in the village. As noticed herein before,
C Ram Prakash could not be arrested so far.

Irr support of the prosecution case, nine witnesses were examined out
of whom PW I Renuka Devi, PW 3 Ram Ratan and PW 5 Amril Lal were
eye witnesses. The prosecution also examined Har Nagar Singh (PW 4) to
show that the accused persons Natthu, his father Nawab Singh and Peshkar
D belonged to the party of the accused Ram Prakash who was charged for
alleged commission of murder of Kedar.

JUDGMENT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE:

The learned Sessions Judge having regard to the statements of the
E respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to
the conclusion that it stands accepted that there had been 'party feelings' in
the village. The learned Sessions Judge, placing reliance upon the eye
witnesses, the medical evidence as also existence of motive on the part of the
respondents to commit the crime, came to the conclusion that they along with
Ram Prakash had a common intention to cause the murder of Sri Ram.
F Having. regard to the fact that the death of the deceased was caused by
Natthu, he was found guilty of commission of the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the others were found guilty
of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing
the accused persons on the question of sentence in terms of Section 235(2)
G of the Code of Crim in al Procedure, the respondents were awarded sentence
of life imprisonment.

H
In arriving at the aforementioned findings, the learned Sessions Judge
relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge
rejected the submissions of the respondents to the effect that Ram Ratan was
not an eye witness inter alia on the ground that had he ·not been present it
-
STATE OF U.P. v. NAWAB SINGH [SINHA, .I.) 57
would not have been possible to come to the area police station at 6.00 a.m .. A
having regard to the fact that his house is situated about 20 miles away. The
learned Sessions Judge also rejected the contention of the respondents that as
the crime number was not mentioned in the Fard Ex. K-2, the prosecution
case should not be believed, on the ground 'that the same was an inadvertent
act on the part of the investigating officer. He also relied upon the evidence B
.... of Sham bu Dayal PW 2 who was a witness to the Fards. So far the contention
\
of the respondents, that the deceased might have been murdered elsewhere
and his dead body has been brought to the house is concerned, the same was
rejected on the ground that admittedly at the time of his death the deceased
was wearing only an underwear and had kept his baniyan separately on the
cot by his side which was sufficient to prove that he had been lying on the C
cot inside the house when he was murdered.

HIGH COURT JUDGMENT:

The appeal against the aforementioned judgment and conviction was
heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench D
surprisingly without finding fault with the reasoning of the learned Sessions
Judge came to the conclusion that it was a case of 'hit and run' during night
hours and actual incidence was not witnessed by any one mainly on a mistaken
belief that the deceased suffered only one gun-shot injury.

The findings of the Division Bench of the High Court which are as E
under:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants Sri S.S. Tewari
and learned Addi. Government Advocate and perusing the record, we
do not feel inclined to accept the prosecution version, as stated. The
manner in which the shooting is said to have been done by the accused F
persons, do not inspire confidence in view of the contradictory and
varying statements of the eye witnesses. The medical report and the
nature uf injury on the person of the deceased do not find corroboration
from the ocular evidence. The explanation of the witnesses about the
injury on the back of the deceased is not at all convincing and G
believable. The injury over the abdominal region with scorching around
the area and the direction of the bullet travelling upward from the
abdomen indicates that the person was hit, while he was sleeping in
lying posture. It is also not acceptable that the accused persons before
actually hitting the deceased, would raise such alann, so that witnesses
may become available by awaking them. If the intention of the accused H
,f

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

.. A persons was to kill the victim, so that he may not appear as a witness,
in the other case pending against them, there was no necessity of
accosting and challenging the deceased at the mid of the night. They
could have easily fired and escaped. It appears that it was a case of
hit and run during night hours and actually incident was not witnessed
by any one. The accused persons were implicated in the case on
B account of enmity and suspicion, and are thus entitled for the benefit
of doubt." rr
Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the
C impugned judgment having failed to take into consideration that:

(i) There had been a motive of commission of crime.
(ii)" There had been no delay in lodging the First Information Report.
(iii) The medical report fully supported the prosecution case and no
contradiction in material particulars have been pointed out in the
D deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) There had been no reason for false implication of the accused
persons.
(v) There was no reason for the eye witnesses to depose falsely.
E Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on

-
the other hand, would submit that the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution story inasmuch as the deceased died out of only one gun-shot
injury. The learned counsel would contend that Ram Prakash having been
absconding and Nawab Singh having since died and no overt act on the part
F of the other respondents as regard the commission of the murder having been
alleged, the judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with.
l
The learned counsel would submit that admittedly_ the night was dark
and the deceased was sleeping on a cot in the courtyard and as such it was
improbable for the eye witnesses to identify the two respondents.
G
It was pointed out that the story of chasing the accused by Renuka Devi
had been contradicted by Ram Ratan. The learned counsel furthermore pointed
out that whereas Renuka Devi stated that the accused persons were chased
upto 1 furlong, Ram Ratan categorically stated that he had not chased the
H accused but they ran away towards the West after going out of the deceased's
house.
STATE OF U.P. v. NAWAB SINGH (SINHA, J.] 59
Mr. Jain would further draw our attention to the post mortem repo1t A
and submit that that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular
evidence. The learned counsel would further submit that the deceased having
been sleeping in the courtyard, it is not possible to see the accused persons
from inside the room.

It was pointed out that the Fard Ex. K-2 did not mention the crime B
number which also throws a suspicion as regard the time when the Fard was
recorded.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE:

Having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the judgment passed by C
the High Court, we have gone through the record of the case.

Renuka Devi, wife of the deceased in her deposition supported the
prosecution case fully. She categorically disclosed the leason as to why the
lantern used to burn regularly at the same place. She further deposed that
both Nawab and Peshkar who had lathis in their hands were standing just D
outside the house and were visibie from the comtyard. In cross-examination
she had also disclosed that Natthu was an accused in the case of Kedar in
which case her husband was a witness. She further stated that her husband
was threatened not to depose in the said case earlier also. Her statement that
/
Ram Prakash was standing only 4-5 hands away from the cot where her E
husband was lying when he had been fired; whereas Natthu was only 2-3
hands therefrom, when he fired his shot, is categorical. She further stated that
she ran upto the accused when the shots were fired. Her statement to the
effect that she had gone out of the house chasing the accused upto one
furlong may be incorrect as no such statement appears to have been made
before the investigating officer but that, in our opinion, is of no. moment. F
Such an omission does not disprove the prosecution case. No other infirmity
in her deposition has been pointed out nor do we find any.

PW 3 Ram Ratan also folly supported the case of the prosecution. The
only discrepancy which has been pointed out by Mr. Jain is that whereas he G
had spoken about the giving a slap on the cheek of the deceased by one of
the accused, no other witness stated so. Again such minor discrepancy is of
not much significance when his presence in the house at the time when the
occurrence took place is beyond any doubt. The contention of Mr. Jain to the
effect that there is no reason as to why he should have been present in the
house of the deceased on the date has rightly been rejected by the learned H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 2 S.C.R.

A Sessions Judge inasmuch as it was impossible for a person to be present in
the police station in the early morning of the following day, as he could not
have been communicated of the incident during night nor any such case has
been made out. It is not even alleged that there existed even a facility of
telecommunication in the village.

B The fact that he had not chased the accused persons cannot be said to
be an unreasonable conduct on his part in view of the fact that the accused
persons were armed. The evidence of PW 4 Har Nagar Singh also corroborates
the prosecution case. Nothing .has been pointed out either before the High
Court or before us to show that he is untrustworthy. PW 5 was the son of the
C deceased. He at the time of incident was aged about 12 years. The learned
Sessions Judge satisfied himself that he possessed normal intellect and, was,
thus, found fit to depose in the case.

Yet again no discrepancy in the statement worth noticing has been
brought to our notice.
D
Dr. S.P. Agarwal who conducted autopsy on the dead body has proved
the post mortem repo1t. The post mortem was conducted on 12.6.1978 at
4.00 p.m, the material portion of the report reads thus:

"Probable Age - About 36 years Probable time since death - About
\
E l Yi day.

External Examination

I. Condition of body R.M. alongwith upper lower limb, blister presei1t,
skin peeled off at places.

F· Eyes - Open
Incised wounds - Ante Mortem. injuries.
I. One G.S. wound of entry 4 cm x 2 cm x abd. cavity into left side
abdomen 21 cm below the left nipple (s.ic)lacerated. sic coming
out surrounding by scorching area in an area of IO cm x 4 cm
G
directed inward upward and medially.
2. Abrasion 7 cm x 0.5 _cm on the left side back auxilary line base,
middle.
......
I

*** *** ***
H
STATE OF U.P. v. NAWAB SINGH [SINHA, .I.] 61
II - Thorax. A
a. walls, ribs, cartridges see injury noted
b. Pleura Rt. Punctured.
c. xxx
d. Right lung Punctured 3 cm x I cm B
e. xxx
f. Pericardium contains clotted blood
g. Heart with wt. Rt. Side punctured 1.5 cm 1 cm (sic) 8 Oz.
Ill - Abdomen
c
I. xxx
2. xxx
3. Cavity contains clotted blood
D
4. Buccal cavity, teeth 16/16
5. xxx
6. Stomach and its contents - Empty punctured 3 cm x 1 cm (sic)
7. xxx E
8. Large intestines and its contents - Full of faeces, NAO
9. Liver with wt. Left side punctured 2 cm x I cm x 2 lb.
Addi. remarks One caroted bullet recovered from .Rt. Shoulder, one
under the ribs.
F
Cause of death - The cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage
as a result of gun-shot injuries."

The post mortem report as well as the statements of Dr. S.P. Agarwal
in Court fully support the prosecution case. He categorically stated that the G
death occurred owing to 'the injuries', i.e., there were more than one injury.
It further appears from 'Additional Remarks' of the post mortem report that
two bullets were recovered from the body.

The High Court unfortunately, as noticed hereinbefore, in recording the
judgment of acquittal, wrongly laid emphasis that only one fire injury was H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 s.c.lt

A caused. The medical report shows that death took place because of' injuries'
meaning thereby more than one injury. The post mortem report further shows
that whereas one injury was caused on the left side of the abdomen the other
one was caused on the right side of the body. Keeping in view the nature of
the injuries suffered by the deceased, the same could not have also been
B caused by one shot. Furthermore, evidently the shot fired by Natthu was fatal
and not the one fired by Ram Prakash.

We have also seen the site plan, from a perusal whereof it appears that
the courtyard was a very small one. The width of the courtyard was 3 paces
and its length was only 7 paces. As disclosed by the eye witnesses, they were
C standing only two hands away from the room. All the accused persons were
residents of the same village and, thus, it cannot be said that, even if the I ight
was dim, it was impossible for the eye witnesses, PW I, PW 3 and PW 5 to
identify them. So far as non-mentioning of the crime number on ~he Fard Ex.
K-2 is concerned, PW 9 in his deposition was forthright in admitting that he
had not thought necessary to write crime number on Fard Ex. K-2. Such
D laxity on the part of the investigating officer, in our opinion, would not
disprove the prosecution case.

SHOULD WE INTERFERE WITH A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL?

The High Court has not assigned any cogent or sufficient reasons for
E disagreeing with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. It arrived at
certain conclusions without analyzing the evidences on record. It is based on
surmises and conjectures. Despite finding that there had been an injury over
the abdominal region with scorching around the area apart travelling upward
from the abdomen which indicated that the deceased was llit, no explanation
has been given why the same was not found to be in consonance with the
F
prosecution story.

The High Court acquitted the accused persons without analysing the
evidence on record and in that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
cannot be sustained. (See Amar Singh. v. Ba/winder Singh, (2003) 2 Supreme
1
G 155 : JT (2003) 2 SC 1) .

.The Trial Court upon critical examination of the evidence of the eye
witnesses had rightly concluded that they were truthful witnesses and the 4
respondents together with Ram Prakash (absconding) and Nawab (since
deceased) were present at the time of occurrence. Merely because the witnesses
H happened to be the relatives of deceased by itself cannot be a ground to reject
ST ATE OF U.P. v. NA WAB SINGH [SINHA, J.] 63
their testimonies. In view of the fact that the occurrence took place at the A
dead of night they were natural witnesses and were supposed to be present
at the place of occurrence.

The reasoning of the High Court to the effect that there was no reason
for the accused to raise an alarm to say the least, is incomprehensible inasmuch
as had the deceased, upon being threatened, stated that he would not depose B
against Ram Prakash and Natthu in the case of murder of Kedar, he might
have been spared. The High Court failed to notice that even similar threat
was given to Het Ram which should have been considered as a part of the
same transaction. Furthermore, ifthe eye witnesses are trustworthy, the motive
attributed for conimission of crime may not be of much relevance. In this C
case, however, the motive for commission of the crime stands proved. We
are satisfied that by reason of the judgment of the High Court, a great
miscarriage of justice has taken place. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.

In State of U.P. v. Premi and Ors., [2003] 2 SCR 266 wherein one of D
us (Sabharwal, J.) was a member observed:

"A well reasoned judgment of the Sessions Court on critical analysis
of the evidence was reversed by the High Court on consideration of
improvements and contradictions which are minor and natural and E
rather go to show the truthfulness of the evidence."

It was further observed:

"We are conscious of limitations while dealing with an appeal against
a judgment of acquittal. Having, however, found that miscarriage of F
justice has resulted by an entirely faulty and erroneous appreciation
of evidence by the High Court, it becomes our duty to interfere in the
matter. From the evidence, the only view possible is one taken by the
Sessions Court."

It is not a case where two reasonable views are possible. It is also not G
a case where findings recorded by the High Court are fully supported by the
evidences on record. The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded
absolutely on a wrong premise that there had been only one fire injury which
is contrary to records.

The High Court being a court of first appeal was required to consider H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 2 S.C.R.

A and reappreciate the evidences but it failed to do and proceeded to dispose
of the appeal on general observations which is impermissible. (See Narendera
Nath Khaware v. Parasnath Khaware and Ors., (2003] 5 SCC 488).

It is well-settled that when reasoning of the High Court is perverse, this
Court may set aside the judgment of acquittal and restore the judgment of
B conviction and sentence upon the accused. (See Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu
Nath Jha and Ors., JT (2003) 8 SC 404 : (2003) 7 Supreme 576.) It is further
well-settled that there is no embargo on appellate court to review evidence
. upon which an order of acquittal is based. [See Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) v.
State of West Bengal and Ors., (2003) 8 Supreme 884, Surinder Singh and
C Anr. v. State of U.P., JT (2003) Supp I SC 226 : (2003) 7 Supreme 562,
Gorle S. Naidu v. State of A.P. and Ors., (2003) 8 Supreme 893 and Suchand ii
I

Pal v. Phani Pal and Anr., (2003) 7 Supreme 780 : JT (2003) 9 SC 17].

We, therefore, have no other alternative but to hold that the High Court
went wrong in passing a judgment of acquittal reversing the well-reasoned
D judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. It is wholly unsustainable.

CONCLUSION:

In view of aforementioned, the judgment of acquittal passed by the
E High Court is set aside and that of the learned Sessions Judge is restored.

As respondent No. I Nawab Singh is said to have expired, the appeal '
stands abated against him.

This appeal is, therefore, allowed so far as· respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are "
p concerned. They shall serve out their remaining sentences imposed upon
them by the learned Sessions Judge wherefor requisite steps shall be taken in
accordance with law.

This appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions.

G v.s.s. Appeal allowed.

·-
~:

I'