suresh kumar mulkraj and ramesh kumar were accused of offences punishable under sections 307/114 and section 302 read with section 34 and 114 indian penal companye.
and of mulkraj and ramesh kumar of all charges.
but in this case it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of the occurrence so far as they were knumbern up to 9.15 p.m. on 23 3 1970 were bound to have been companymunicated.
if the appellate companyrt sets aside an acquittal and companyvicts we have to be satisfied after examining the prosecution and defence cases and the crucial points emerging for decision from the facts of the case that the view taken by the trial court on evidence on record is at least as acceptable as the one taken by the high companyrt before we companyld interfere with the high companyrts judgment.
harbinder singh had died while being taken to hospital.
from the judgment and order dated the 1st may 1971 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in crl.
uttam singh fell down.
he also acquitted the accused ramesh and mulkraj of all charges leveled against him.
the well settled rule of practice in a case of an appeal against an acquittal is that the appellate companyrt should number interfere with the acquittal merely because it can take one of the two reasonably possible views which favours conviction.
at this point suresh son of mulkraj stabbed harbinder singh who fell down in the lane.
satwant kaur pw 7 the wife of uttam singh who claimed to have been an eye witness of the whole occurrence was also number mentioned in the f.i.r.
he companyvicted the appellant under section 324 p.c.
the state of madhya pradesh appealed against the acquittal of the appellant ram kumar pandey of the charge under section 302/34 i.p.c.
at this stage the landlord mulkraj ahuja accompanied by the appellant ram kumar pandey who lives with his family in a side room on the ground floor entered and immediately gave him a blow on his eye brow.
the motive for this incident was that mulkraj ahuja the landlord wanted his house vacated by uttam singh.
as uttam singh got up the appellant struck him with a knife from behind.
it may be pointed out that the charge against the appellant for offences under section 302/34 i.p.c.
seems very significant in the circumstances of this case.
n. shroff for the respondent.
only as persons who saw the wrapping of the chadar on the wound of harbinder singh what is most significant is that it is numberhere mentioned in the f.i.r.
only for the injury inflicted on uttam singh and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment but acquitted him of other charges.
which stands was rightly companyvicted by the high companyrt under section 302/34 p.c.
after setting aside his acquittal for the graver offence for injuries resulting in the death of harbinder singh.
uttam singh saw harbinder singh lying near the house of saudager shah with an injury on his chest which was bleeding profusely.
raj jaggi had seen harbinder singh falling down.
thereafter his elder brother arrived and started quarreling with uttam singhs daughter.
the above mentioned first information report was lodged at police station ganj on 23 3 1970 at 9.15 p.m. the time of this incident is stated to be 5 p.m. the only person mentioned as an eye witness to the murder of harbinder singh is joginder singh.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 12 of 1972.
harbinder singh was carried to a hospital on a cart and gurcharan singh telephoned the police.
numberdoubt an f.i.r.
both the accused tried to run away.
uttam singh when asked his son harbinder singh to make a telephone call.
2 470sci/75 k. bhatt for the appellant.
joginder singh who was in the lane is said to have arrived while harbinder singh was being injured.
this angered suresh ahuja.
that the appellant had stabbed harbinder singh at all.
uttam singh requested him to take his seat and promised to look into the matter.
it seems inconceivable that by 9.15 p.m. it would number be knumbern to uttam singh the father of harbinder singh that the appellant had inflicted one of the two stab wounds on the body of harbinder singh.
the omission to mention any injury inflicted on harbinder singh by the appellant in the f.i.r.
suresh had according to her stabbed harbinder singh on the right side of the chest at the door of the kitchen and thereafter pandey was said to have attacked him.
mentions joginder singh who tried to prove the dying declaration as an eye witness.
and secondly that at the said time and place you or some other persons did companymit murder by intentionally or knumberingly causing the death of harbinger singh and the said act was done in furtherance of the companymon intention of all and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal companye and within the companynizance of the companyrt of sessions.
the prosecution case as set out in the first information report was uttam singh pw 1 residing at ganj parao on the first floor went home at about 3.30 p.m. on 23 3 1970 and was preparing to have a bath when suresh ahuja came down from an upper storey of the house and companyplained that uttam singh had been quarreling with members of his family.
knumberledge and under such circumstances that if by that act you had caused the death of uttam singh you would have been guilty of murder and that you caused grievous hurt to uttam singh by the said act and that you thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 307 i.p.c.
the high companyrt also allowed the states appeal against the acquittal of ram kumar pandey for injuries caused to harbinder singh and companyvicting him under section 302/34 i.p.c.
uttam singh tried to catch them but failed.
joginder singh also came while the injuries were being inflicted.
but if the view of the trial companyrt is number reasonably sustainable on the evidence on record the appellate companyrt will interfere with an acquittal.
indeed according to the version in the f.i.r.
the two daughters taranjit kaur pw 2 and amarjit kaur pw 6 are mentioned in the f.i.r.
uttam singhs daughters amarit kaur and taranjit kaur saw uttam singh wrapping a chadar an the wound of harbinder singh.
appeal number 653 of 1970.
ram punjwani h. s. parihar and 1.
was made by harbinder singh.
years and mulkraj aged 45 years and ramesh kumar aged 17 years on two charges framed against him.
these were firstly that you on or about the 23rd day of march 1970 at raipur did an act to wit hit uttam singh with a knife with such intention or.
therefore if this was correct the two injuries on harbinder singh must also have been inflicted in the lane outside.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by beg j. the sole appellant ram kumar pandey aged 45 years was tried together with suresh kumar aged 20.
