Summary
The Court upheld reversal of acquittal for two assailants whose individual axe attacks were consistently proved despite exaggerations implicating others. Reliable eyewitness evidence, supported by medical findings and the circumstances of the scene, established their respective acts. The trial court’s failure to separate credible evidence from embellishment rendered its findings perverse and justified appellate interference.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse acquittal where the trial court overlooked consistent evidence amid exaggerations.
- Whether unreliable allegations against other accused required rejection of the entire eyewitness account.
- Whether related witnesses, non-examination of bystanders and other discrepancies created reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Reconciled restraint arising from acquittal and the double presumption of innocence with full appellate power to reassess evidence and correct perverse findings. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 28, 29, 37)
Held
- Where two reasonable views exist, the view favouring acquittal warrants restraint. But appellate courts may reassess facts and law; overlooking material admissible evidence and reaching findings contrary to it can render an acquittal perverse. (¶¶ 14, 15, 28, 29)
- Exaggerated allegations do not require automatic rejection of the whole account. Courts must isolate reliable evidence where possible, discarding the whole only when truth and falsehood cannot be separated so as to leave dependable proof. (¶¶ 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The consistent evidence established Budhi Singh’s fatal axe blow and Achhar Singh’s axe attack on the injured witness, supported by the medical evidence. The trial court wrongly lost sight of those individual acts amid unsupported allegations against others. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 27)
- Relationship to the victim does not itself discredit a witness. The accounts here remained consistent on the appellants’ roles and were medically corroborated; each case requires assessment on its own facts. (¶ 30)
- Scene evidence supported an attack inside the house; the prosecution was not required to multiply witnesses where adequate proof existed. Social boycott explained absent bystanders, while the cited timing discrepancies did not displace the reliable core. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
Result
Appeals dismissed; Achhar Singh’s convictions under Sections 452, 326 and 323 and Budhi Singh’s convictions under Sections 302 and 452 maintained. Bail bonds cancelled; appellants directed to serve their remaining sentences.