H. C. Mital, J. - (1.) THE State Government has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11-2-78 passed by Sri L. R. Kohli, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital at Kashipur, acquitting the appellants under sections 147, 148, 302/19, 307/149, 201 and 394 IPC.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2nd October, 1975 at about 5 P.M. on account of enmity these respondents of whom Daler Singh and Lakhbir Singh were armed with Kantas, Charan Singh with a Barchhi and remaining respondents with lathis. Finding I rider Singh alone they attacked him and thereafter on hearing his cries his father Sardar Singh, Kartar Singh and Yogendra Singh also reached. THEy were also attacked and as a result of the injuries Sardar Singh and Kartar Singh died on the spot, while Inder Singh and Jogender Singh received injuries. A written report of the occurrence was submitted on the following day, i.e. 3rd October, 1975 at 7.15 A.M. at police station Sitar Ganj at a distance of 8 1/2 miles from the place of occurrence on the basis of which a case was registered. THE Investigating Officer arrived at the scene of occurrence. After preparing the inquest report he sent the dead bodies for postmortem and the injured for medical examination. Dr. Raghubir Singh on 3-10-75 examined and noted the following injuries on the person of the injured. Injuries of Inder Singh vide injury report Ext. Ka 3 (at 10.20 A.M.) :- 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 8 cm x bone deep on left side of fore heard. 2. Incised wound 1 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep on the dorssal aspect of right hand with swelling and pain Ad. X-ray. 3. Incised wound 2 cm x 5 cm x bone deep on the front of right leg lower third. 4.Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm x bluished colour on the outer aspect of left by lower third. Ad. X-ray. 5.Contusion 7 cm x 3 cm x bluish red on the left leg upper third outer side. 6.Multiple contusion bluish red colour on the whole back. Injuries of Jogender Singh vide injury report Ext. Ka 4 at 11.00 A.M. 1. Incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm x muscle deep on the outer aspect of left upper arm Adv. X-ray with traumatic swelling 5 cm x 4 cm on left elbow. 2.Incised wound 3 cm x 8 cm x muscle deep on right index finger palmar side. 3.Contusion 6 cm x 2.5 cm x bluish red on the front of left leg middle third. 4.Lacerated wound 6 cm x 5 cm x bone deep on left parietal bone of head 10 cm from the pinna of left ear. 5.Contusion 8 cm x 2.5 cm x bluish red on scapular region. 6. Contusion 7 cm x 2.5 cm x bluish red on right scapular region. 7. Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm x bluish red colour on the back left lumber region. Adv. X-ray. Dr. P. C. Joshi had done the autopsy on the dead bodies and noted as follows :- Sardar Singh vide postmortem examination report Ext. Ka 1 had received the following injuries :- Ante-mortem injuries 1. Gaping wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over the left temporal region with a fixed fracture 7 cm long, longitudional, over the temporal bone. 2. Contusion 12 cm x 4 cm on the left infra scapular region on the neck with underneath fracture of the 8th rib. Internal injuries Left temporal and parietal bones were fractured. Membranes were lacerated and brain was liquified. Death was caused as a result of ante-mortem injuries due to shock and haemorrhage. Kartar Singh vide postmortem examination report Ext. Ka 2 had received the following injuries :- Ante-mortem injuries 1. A wound of 8 cm x 5 cm x skull deep on the crown of the head with depressed fracture of the left parietal bone measuring 3 cm x 3.5 cm with the sutures having become loose. 2. Contusion 6 cm x 3 cm on the left side scapular region with fractures of 7th and 8th ribs. 3. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on the right scapular region with the fracture of 5th and 6th ribs. 4.Contusion 6 cm x 3 cm over right buttock. 5.Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the back of the right leg, and 6.Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on the front of the left leg 5 cm below patalla. Internal injuries Skull bones were depressed. Parietal bone was fractured. Membranes were lacerated. Brain was liquified and in the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage. After completion of the investigation the respondents were tried and at the trial the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses of whom PW 1 Inder Singh, PW 6 Gurbachan Singh, PW 7 Jogender Singh and PW 8 Bachan Singh are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 9 Dayal Singh and PW 10 Mal Singh are the witnesses regarding recovery of the dead bodies at the pointing out of Balwant Singh. PW 2 Dr. P. C. Joshi had done the autopsy and had proved the two postmortem examination reports. PW 5 Dr. Raghubir Singh had examined the injured and had proved their injury reports and the injuries noted above. PW 12 is Sheodan Singh who had registered the case after receipt of the written report at the police station Sitar Ganj. PW 13 Inspector Jagbir Singh is the Investigating Officer, who has stated about the various steps taken by him during the investigation. The remaining are the formal witnesses. That apart, the court also examined 3 persons as Court Witnesses, namely Gurdeep Singh C.W. 1, one of the witnesses of the occurrence. C.W. 2 Kashmir Singh is the person in whose presence accused respondent Surjan Singh was apprehended and C.W. 3 Sri Moti Lal is the Hand Writing Expert who proved the report regarding specimen thumb impressions.
(3.) THE version of the accused-respondent was that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. THEy examined only one witness in defence, namely DW 1 Dharam Singh who proved the application Ext. Ka 7 bearing the signature of Balwant Singh accused also. After considering the entire evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt to the accused-respondent, hence he acquitted all of them of the charges framed against them. On being aggrieved, the State has pre- ferred this appeal. The law is well settled that appeals from acquittal are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. It is an extra-ordinary remedy. The appeal by Government should be made judiciously and only in cases where the judgment is so clearly wrong that its maintenance would amount to a serious miscarriage of justice or when a principle is involved or the question is one of great importance or of great public importance. The burden is on the Government to show that the acquittal is wrong and strong and urgent grounds must be made out to justify interference. When there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the High Court will not interfere nor will it interfere merely because upon evidence the lower court might have come to the conclusion of guilt, unless it is quite clear that the acquittal is wrong. The High Court will not also interfere merely because it might itself, as an original court, have arrived at a different conclusion. Where an appeal against acquittal turns on the facts it would only succeed if the judgment of acquittal is dearly wrong and involves a miscarriage of justice or when the trial Judge has erred in failing to draw the clear, indubitable and irresistible inference from the facts or when the trial courts appreciation of evidence is vitiated by failure to take note of a very important fact or where finding of fact is based on an erroneous rejection of evidence. Hence this Court will only interfere if it is proved without any doubt not only that the accused is guilty, but that he has been acquitted on unreasonable grounds.;