Pala Singh &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Punjab
Kohli, the learned counsel for the appellants, took us through the relevant evidence and the judgments of the two courts below. The principal argument pressed by him in support of this appeal was that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had on a consideration of the entire evidence come to a conclusion which is reasonable and had, on the basis of that conclusion, held that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable and that the accused were, therefore, entitled to acquittal. The High Court, according to this submission, was not justified in reappraising the evidence for itself and in disagreeing with the reasoning of the trial Court for convicting the appellants on appeal against acquittal. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence in Paras 5 and 6 and proceeded.) 7. Shri Kohli strongly criticised the fact that the occurrence report contemplated by S. 157, Cr. P.C. was sent to the magistrate concerned very late. Indeed, this challenge, like the argument of interpolation and belated despatch of the inquest report, was developed for the purpose of showing that the investigation was not just, fair and forthright and, therefore, the prosecution case must be looked at with great suspicion. This argument is also unacceptable. No doubt, the report reached the magistrate at about 6 p. m. S.157, Cr. P. C. requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence. This is really designed to keep the magistrate informed of the investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under S. 159. But when we find in this case that the F. I. R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F. I.R. and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. It is not the appellants case that they have been prejudiced by this delay. 8. Shri Kohli took us through the evidence of the eye-witnesses and pointed out certain minor discrepancies. But his main contention was based on the argument that the judgment of the trial Court was reasonable and it was open to a court to come to the conclusion to which it came. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal into one of conviction. In support of his sub-mission of relied on three decisions of this Court: 1. Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1961) 3 SCR 120 = (AIR 1961 SC 715 ) 2. Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of A. P., AIR 1971 SC 460 . 3. Bansidhar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, AIR 1955 SC 585 . In the latest decision of this Court in Ramabhupala Reddy (supra) it has been observed that the controversy in regard to the scope of an appeal against an order of acquittal has been settled by this Court in Sanwant Singh (supra) in which the legal position was summarised thus: "1. An appellate Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; 2. The principles laid down in Sheo Swarups case, 61 Ind App 308 = (AIR 1934 PC 227 ) afforded a correct guide for the appellate courts approach to a case disposing of such an appeal; 3. the different phraseology used in the judgments of this court such as: (a) substantial and compelling reasons ; (b) good and sufficiently cogent reasons. (c) strong reasons are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal but should express the reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified." This, in our view, correctly summarises the legal position as finally settled by this Court, The submission urged by Shri Kohli, therefore, that merely because the judgment of the trial court prima facie seems reasonable there is no scope for reassessment of the evidence by the appellate court is unacceptable. The court of appeal has full power under the statute to go into the entire evidence and all the relevant circumstances of the case for coming to its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused bearing in mind the initial presumption of the innocence of an accused person. We do not think that the High Court committed any error in the appraisal of the evidence on the record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants. The criticism about the insertion of S. 120B in the plan Ex. PH/1, in our view, may raise slight suspicion but in view of the trustworthiness of the prosecution evidence led in the case we do not think that in any way justifies any grave suspicion of the prosecution story. 9. Besides, the case is now before us under Art. 136 of the Constitution, We allowed Shri Kohli not only to state the case broadly and to take us through the judgments of the two courts below but also to take us through such evidence as he considered proper for persuading us to hold that the High Court had not followed the principles laid down in Sanwant Singhs case, (1961) 3 SCR 120 = (AIR 1961 SC 715 ) (supra) or that its conclusions were otherwise so erroneous as to justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are not persuaded to hold that there is any ground for differing with the conclusion of the High Court.
0[ds]This, in our view, correctly summarises the legal position as finally settled by this Court, The submission urged by Shri Kohli, therefore, that merely because the judgment of the trial court prima facie seems reasonable there is no scope for reassessment of the evidence by the appellate court is unacceptable. The court of appeal has full power under the statute to go into the entire evidence and all the relevant circumstances of the case for coming to its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused bearing in mind the initial presumption of the innocence of an accused person. We do not think that the High Court committed any error in the appraisal of the evidence on the record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants. The criticism about the insertion of S. 120B in the plan Ex. PH/1, in our view, may raise slight suspicion but in view of the trustworthiness of the prosecution evidence led in the case we do not think that in any way justifies any grave suspicion of the prosecution story9. Besides, the case is now before us under Art. 136 of the Constitution, We allowed Shri Kohli not only to state the case broadly and to take us through the judgments of the two courts below but also to take us through such evidence as he considered proper for persuading us to hold that the High Court had not followed the principles laid down in Sanwant Singhs case, (1961) 3 SCR 120   = (AIR 1961 SC 715  ) (supra) or that its conclusions were otherwise so erroneous as to justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are not persuaded to hold that there is any ground for differing with the conclusion of the High Court.
### Instruction:
Evaluate the case proceeding to forecast the court's decision (1 for yes, 0 for no), and elucidate the reasoning behind this prediction with important textual evidence from the case.

### Input:
Kohli, the learned counsel for the appellants, took us through the relevant evidence and the judgments of the two courts below. The principal argument pressed by him in support of this appeal was that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had on a consideration of the entire evidence come to a conclusion which is reasonable and had, on the basis of that conclusion, held that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable and that the accused were, therefore, entitled to acquittal. The High Court, according to this submission, was not justified in reappraising the evidence for itself and in disagreeing with the reasoning of the trial Court for convicting the appellants on appeal against acquittal. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence in Paras 5 and 6 and proceeded.) 7. Shri Kohli strongly criticised the fact that the occurrence report contemplated by S. 157, Cr. P.C. was sent to the magistrate concerned very late. Indeed, this challenge, like the argument of interpolation and belated despatch of the inquest report, was developed for the purpose of showing that the investigation was not just, fair and forthright and, therefore, the prosecution case must be looked at with great suspicion. This argument is also unacceptable. No doubt, the report reached the magistrate at about 6 p. m. S.157, Cr. P. C. requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence. This is really designed to keep the magistrate informed of the investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under S. 159. But when we find in this case that the F. I. R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F. I.R. and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. It is not the appellants case that they have been prejudiced by this delay. 8. Shri Kohli took us through the evidence of the eye-witnesses and pointed out certain minor discrepancies. But his main contention was based on the argument that the judgment of the trial Court was reasonable and it was open to a court to come to the conclusion to which it came. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal into one of conviction. In support of his sub-mission of relied on three decisions of this Court: 1. Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1961) 3 SCR 120 = (AIR 1961 SC 715 ) 2. Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of A. P., AIR 1971 SC 460 . 3. Bansidhar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, AIR 1955 SC 585 . In the latest decision of this Court in Ramabhupala Reddy (supra) it has been observed that the controversy in regard to the scope of an appeal against an order of acquittal has been settled by this Court in Sanwant Singh (supra) in which the legal position was summarised thus: "1. An appellate Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; 2. The principles laid down in Sheo Swarups case, 61 Ind App 308 = (AIR 1934 PC 227 ) afforded a correct guide for the appellate courts approach to a case disposing of such an appeal; 3. the different phraseology used in the judgments of this court such as: (a) substantial and compelling reasons ; (b) good and sufficiently cogent reasons. (c) strong reasons are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal but should express the reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified." This, in our view, correctly summarises the legal position as finally settled by this Court, The submission urged by Shri Kohli, therefore, that merely because the judgment of the trial court prima facie seems reasonable there is no scope for reassessment of the evidence by the appellate court is unacceptable. The court of appeal has full power under the statute to go into the entire evidence and all the relevant circumstances of the case for coming to its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused bearing in mind the initial presumption of the innocence of an accused person. We do not think that the High Court committed any error in the appraisal of the evidence on the record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants. The criticism about the insertion of S. 120B in the plan Ex. PH/1, in our view, may raise slight suspicion but in view of the trustworthiness of the prosecution evidence led in the case we do not think that in any way justifies any grave suspicion of the prosecution story. 9. Besides, the case is now before us under Art. 136 of the Constitution, We allowed Shri Kohli not only to state the case broadly and to take us through the judgments of the two courts below but also to take us through such evidence as he considered proper for persuading us to hold that the High Court had not followed the principles laid down in Sanwant Singhs case, (1961) 3 SCR 120 = (AIR 1961 SC 715 ) (supra) or that its conclusions were otherwise so erroneous as to justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are not persuaded to hold that there is any ground for differing with the conclusion of the High Court.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
This, in our view, correctly summarises the legal position as finally settled by this Court, The submission urged by Shri Kohli, therefore, that merely because the judgment of the trial court prima facie seems reasonable there is no scope for reassessment of the evidence by the appellate court is unacceptable. The court of appeal has full power under the statute to go into the entire evidence and all the relevant circumstances of the case for coming to its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused bearing in mind the initial presumption of the innocence of an accused person. We do not think that the High Court committed any error in the appraisal of the evidence on the record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants. The criticism about the insertion of S. 120B in the plan Ex. PH/1, in our view, may raise slight suspicion but in view of the trustworthiness of the prosecution evidence led in the case we do not think that in any way justifies any grave suspicion of the prosecution story9. Besides, the case is now before us under Art. 136 of the Constitution, We allowed Shri Kohli not only to state the case broadly and to take us through the judgments of the two courts below but also to take us through such evidence as he considered proper for persuading us to hold that the High Court had not followed the principles laid down in Sanwant Singhs case, (1961) 3 SCR 120   = (AIR 1961 SC 715  ) (supra) or that its conclusions were otherwise so erroneous as to justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are not persuaded to hold that there is any ground for differing with the conclusion of the High Court.
