Apart from the three accused whose presence at the place of occurrence was not accepted, the trial court also doubted the presence of two out of the three eye witnesses. The trial court further held that even PW-2, the only remaining eye witness, had mixed-up truth with falsehood but his testimony was not liable to be disregarded wholly since he had himself received injury in the same occurrence. In regard to the injury, the trial court came to a truly amazing conclusion. The injury on the hand of Ramesh was certainly in existence and it was also proved by the medical evidence. The trial court resolved the contradiction by fastening the injury to Ramesh too on to the appellant even though that was not the case of the prosecution. The appellant was, thus, held guilty also of causing the knife injury to Ramesh and came to be convicted under Section 324 in addition to section 302 of the Penal code. Under section 324, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under section 25 of the Arms Act by a separate judgment of the trial court dated February 2, 1998 in Sessions case no. 26 of 1993 and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone as under-trial. Against the two judgments of the trial court, three appeals were filed in the High Court. The High Court by the judgment and order coming under appeal dismissed all the three appeals and the revision and, thus, upheld the judgments of the trial court in all aspects. The senior advocate, appearing for the appellant assailed the High Court and the trial court judgments and contended that the appellant’s conviction for the offence of murder was not sustainable both in law and on facts. He submitted that there were at least four circumstances that falsified and completely demolished the prosecution case. First, there was a patent contradiction between the prosecution case and the motive assigned by it to the accused for committing the crime. Secondly, it was undeniable that injuries were fabricated both on the person or the deceased and Ramesh, the only eye witness whose evidence was accepted by the High Court. According to the prosecution case, there was a fierce enmity between the persons of accused party and complainant party. On the fateful day, accused persons armed with dangerous weapons and bombs attacked the deceased and the prosecution witnesses. Appellant hurled bomb on deceased and he died on the spot and others also hurled bombs and prosecution witnesses suffered spinster injuries. The High Court upheld the acquittal of all the accused except the appellant and convicted the appellant u/s 302. The High Court has not exercised the caution that was expected to while dealing with the judgment of acquittal by the trial court. High Court was not justified in interfering with the well considered judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The well considered judgment of the trial court has been upset by the High court and in its judgment; the High Court relied on the complaint. There is hardly any consideration in the High Court’s judgment, more particularly of the mix up of timings as regards the complaint. In the complaint it is specifically alleged that the Telugu Desham Party was led by the appellant. Both the parties, had fought in connection with using the road and the witness himself and his party people were accused in that case and were absconding. It is then suggested, PW1 and other persons went to cart the paddy hay of R.R. and while they were bundling the hay, the 16 accused persons came there and the appellant, A-2, A-3 were holding bombs in their hands. It was the appellant who hurled a bomb on deceased. The said bomb exploded and deceased fell down and died on the spot; then the others also started hurling the bombs. PW1 then refers to his being hacked by other accused persons with a hunting sickle and on the right knee with the spear. He then refers to an injury caused on his little finger because of the spear. He then refers to the police firing a gun. After that he refers that all the injured came to the Government Hospital and were being treated. On seeing the evidence of PW1 in the light of evidence of PW14, Head Constable and PW15, Circle Inspector, the falsity of the evidence becomes clear. Though in his examination-in-chief, he claimed that all of them along with the woman folk were taken in the tractor. (800 words)
