Pattanaik, J. - (1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of Kerala High Court dated 21-10-1991 in Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 1986. Vijayan alias Rajan appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1992 along with Sadanandan - appellant in Criminal Appeal No.753 of 1991 were tried in the Court of Session Judge, Ernakulam for having committed the offence under Sections 120-B, 109, 447, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 35 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act for the murder of Majeendran by means of a revolver. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused persons. On an appeal being carried by the State, the High Court by the impugned judgment has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and convicted Vijayan of the charge under Section 302, IPC and Sadanandan of the charge under Section 302 read with 120-B (1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and hence these two appeals.
(2.) The prosecution case is that the two appellants entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause death of Majeendran who was residing in the city of Cochin. Pursuant to the said conspiracy and being instigated by accused Sadanandan, Vijayan went to the house of Majeendran at 6.00 a.m. on 9-10-1981 and fired two shots at him from a revolver. One of the said shot hit the chest of Majeendran and immediately after firing Vijayan left the place. Majeendran was then first taken to the hospital by some of the neighbours and then to the Medical Trust Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries at about 7.10 a.m. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that Sadanandan was a rising abkari contractor and PW 50 who was uncle of Sadanandan was giving financial help to him. Deceased Majeendran was in business and had received finances from said PW 50. Sadanandan was perturbed on account of this, thinking that his uncle would no more render the same financial help for his business and as such be conspired with Vijayan and gave him a revolver and instigated him to punish Majeendran which he did on the fateful day during the early hours. Sadanandan was arrested on 27-10-1981. Vijayan surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 4-7-84. Though the prosecution examined as many as 70 witnesses and exhibited 110 documents to bring home the charge against the accused persons but there is no eye witness to the said occurrence. The prosecution, however, relied upon the circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge examined each of the circumstances which the prosecution relied upon and ultimately came to the conclusion that the circumstances those established do not complete the chain for bringing home the charges against the accused persons and accordingly acquitted both the appellant of all charges levelled against them. The High Court by the impugned judgment, however, re-appreciated the circumstantial evidence and being of the conclusion that the circumstances those established complete the chain pointing the guilt of the accused recorded the conviction of the two appellants.
(3.) Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant Vijayan submitted that the High Court committed serious error in relying upon the evidence of PW-3 to come to the conclusion that she saw accused Vijayan on the early hours of the date of occurrence and reliance upon such circumstances is wholly unsustainable. Mr. Lalit also submitted that a bare reading of the judgment of the High Court would indicate that the Court was persuaded to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because of the sensation it created in the locality rather than on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Mr. Lalit also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge having discussed each of the circumstance sought to be established by the prosecution and having given good reasons for not accepting those circumstances the High Court was duty bound to consider those reasons and non-consideration of those reasons has vitiated the impugned judgment of the High Court by way of interference with the order of acquittal.;