Untwalia, J. - (1.) Bahal Singh, the sole respondent in this appeal, was tried by the Sessions Judge of Hisar for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of one Ram Sarup, brother of Manphool, P.W. 2. The Trial Judge held that the prosecution was not able to establish the occurrence in the manner alleged by any reliable evidence; at any rate, the case against the respondent was not free from doubt. Accordingly, he acquitted the respondent. On appeal by the State of Haryana the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside the respondent's acquittal, convicted him under Section 302 of the Penal Code and imposed sentence of life imprisonment. This appeal has been preferred under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
(2.) The principles governing the scope of an appeal against acquittal and the High Court's power to interfere in it are well settled by several decision of this Court, to wit Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC 450 and Ram Jag v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 606. In Khedu Mohton's case (supra) it has been pointed out by Hegde, J, in paragraph 3 at page 452 = (para 3 at pages 67-68 of AIR SC): "It is true that the powers of the High Court in considering the evidence on record in appeals under Section 417, Cri. P.C., are as extensive at its powers in appeals against convictions but that Court at the same time should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of accused persons which presumption is not weakened by their acquittal. It must also bear in mind the fact that the appellate judge has found them not guilty. Unless the conclusions reached by him are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or that his decision is likely to result in grave injustice, the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with his conclusion. If two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record then the view in support of the acquittal of the accused should be preferred. The fact that the High Court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence on record is not sufficient to interfere with the order of acquittal."
(3.) Chandrachud, J. speaking for the Court in Ram Jag's case (supra) has summarized 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 re-opened. 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 witness 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.";