Untwalia, J. - (1.) The six appellants in this Criminal Appeal were acquitted by the Sessions Judge of Faizabad in U. P. of all the charges levelled against them. The State filed appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court has allowed the appeal, convicted appellant Ram Kumar under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment besides recording his conviction under Section 148 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. Separate sentences have been awarded on those counts also but they have been directed to run concurrently. Appellants Ram Anjore, Ram Dawan, Ran Dawar Ram, Lakhan and Ram Nihore have been convicted under Section 147 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. The sentence imposed is one year's rigorous imprisonment under each count with a direction that it shall run concurrently. They have preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court. Appellant Ram Kumar's appeal would also lie under Section 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
(2.) The scope and the power of the High Court in an appeal from the order of acquittal have been enunciated in several decisions of this Court. In a recent decision vice Ram Jag v. The State of U. P. AIR 1974 SC 606, Chandrachud, J. speaking for the Court has reviewed several such decisions and summarised the law on the point in the following terms: "The principles governing appeals against acquittal are thus firmly established and the issue cannot now be reopened. The Code of Criminal Procedure by Section 423, has accorded parity to appeals against conviction and appeals against acquittal the Code makes no distinction between the powers of the appellate court in regard to the two categories of appeals and therefore the High Court has powers as full and wide in appeals against acquittal as in appeals against conviction. Whether the High Court is dealing with one class of appeals or the other, it must equally have regard to the fundamental principles of Criminal Jurisprudence that unless the statute provides to the contrary, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and secondly that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Due regard to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses in matters resting on pure appreciation of evidence and the studied slowness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, where such seeing and hearing can be useful aids to the assessment of evidence, are well-known principles which generally inform the administration of justice and govern the exercise of all appellate jurisdiction. They are self-imposed limitations on a power otherwise plenary and like all voluntary restraints, they constitute valuable guidelines. Such regard and slowness must find their reflection in the appellate judgment, which can only be if the appellate court deals with the principal reasons that influenced the order of acquittal and after examining the evidence with care gives its own reasons justifying a contrary view of the evidence. It is implicit in this judicial process that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed." For the reasons to be stated hereinafter we are of the opinion that the High Court has kept itself well within these limits and bounds in the exercise of its powers. It has not transgressed them in any manner.
(3.) The appellants and members of the prosecution party are all residents of village Mathia, hamlet of Madania, P. S. Raje Sultanpur, District Faizabad. There are only two dozen of houses in the hamlet. Appellants Ram Anjore and Ram Kumar are brothers. So are inter se applicants Ram Lakhan Ram Dawar and Ram Dawan. Appellant Ram Nihore is their nephew. There was a long standing enmity between Ram Kumar and Ram Anjore on the one side and Ram Palat, P.W. 1 the first informant in the case on the other. Raj Mangal, P.W. 2, Parasnath Bharti, P.W. 3 are brothers. They are the second cousins of Ram Palat. Ram Dhani, P.W. 4 is nephew of Ram Palat. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 10-00 A.M. on the 15th October, 1967 near the house of P. W. Raj Mangal in which Vishwanath, helper of Ram Palat was killed by a spear blow given by Ram Kumar and P. Ws. Ram Palat and Raj Mangal were assaulted with lathi by the other appellants. The genesis of the occurrence is said to be the long standing enmity:The proximate and immediate cause was measurement and demarcation of the fields of appellant Ram Anjore and P.W. Ram Palat in plot Nos. 305/1 and 305/2 in the morning of the date of occurrence. This was preceded by some incident a day previous on the 14th. The disputed land is situated in village Phulwaria adjoining village Mathia. It is on the boundary. In the division of the plot there was difference between appellant Ram Anjore and P.W. Ram Palat. The former is said to have ploughed a portion of the land belonging to the latter in the Asarh of 1957.;