320 of 1986 From the Judgment and order dated 12 11.1984 of the Delhi High Court in Crl Revision No 228 of 1982 Rangarajan, Miss Asha Rani Jain and Sanjay Parikh, for the Appellant.
It is on this basis that the learned Judge has proceeded to set aside the acquittal of the appellants and order a retrial of the case after virtually recording findings in regard to the credibility of the evidence given by the witnesses relied on by the prosecution.
Thereafter all the five accused are said to have run away from the scene with their lathis.
Thereupon they rushed to the place of the incident.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed that revision petition, set aside the acquittal of the appellants and remitted the case to the trial companyrt for re trial Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court the appellants have companye up to this Court with this appeal and the main companytention raised by them is that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has transgressed the bounds of his revisional jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence and setting aside their acquittal.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on the mid night of 3rd and 4th June, 1980 while Laxman Singh P.W. 1 was sleeping on the terrace of his house in the DESU Colony, Delhi along with his companysin Moti Lal P.W. 7 , they heard the numberse of a quarrel and loud shouting from the lane below and on looking down from the terrace they found that deceased Ram Chander was being beaten by accused Nos.
It is said that Ram Chander wielding an iron handle of a hand pump was giving blows to the accused and he in turn was being beaten by lathis by the remaining persons.
There appears to have been a free for all fight.
1 and 4 .
Even in an appeal against an order of acquittal numberinterference will be made with the judgment of the trial companyrt except in rare and exceptional cases where there has been some manifest illegality in the approach to the case or the appreciation of the evidence or where the companyclusion of fact recorded by the Trial Judge is wholly unreasonable so as to be liable to be characterised as perverse and there has been a resultant miscarriage of justice The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with an order of acquittal passed by the trial companyrt is more narrow in its scope.
One Babu Lal who was residing in the adjoining quarter also came there and when all the three tried to intervene and separate deceased Ram Chander and the two accused, the first accused called out to Bhagwat second accused , who was looking down from his adjacent quarter asking him why he was just watching while Ram Chander was assaulting them.
The five appellants were tried by the companyrt of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on a charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
In support of the prosecution story, three persons were examined as eye witnesses namely, P.W 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In response to the said call it is alleged that Bhagwat along with the remaining accused came there carrying lathis in their hands.
After a very detailed companysideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt The respondent herein, who is a son of the deceased victim of the murder preferred a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Delhi under Section 397/401 Cr.
1 and 2, as a result of which he fell down bleeding and died on the spot.
P.C. challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
By such a process of elaborate re examination of the evidence the learned Single Judge was inclined to reach a companyclusion different from that recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the acceptability of the testimony of P.W 1 and P.W. 7.
It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Chander was administered lathi blows on his head by accused Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. Special leave granted.
N. Chitkara and R.C. Verma for the Respondent.
Heard both sides.
1 and 4 Appellant Nos.
