Criminal - Murder - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Respondents in order to take revenge fired

two shots at deceased resulting in death of two persons - Session Court convicted appellant for offence
under Section 302 and sentenced them to death penalty - On appeal High Court acquitted both
respondents - Hence, present appeal - Witness No. 1 was real brother of one of deceased and witnesses
No. 2 was questioned only twenty days of occurrence and thus their evidentiary values had eroded - But
evidence of witnesses No. 1 was had gained entry in police records within hour of incident in which vivid
details of occurrence including full identity of assailants was recorded - Held, acquittal by High Court not
justified in view of strong evidence of witness No. 1 and 2 - Appeal allowed

speaking

Ends of justice would be met by sentencing them each to imprisonment for life. Accordingly, we
sentence each of the accused to imprisonment for life. We direct the sessions court to resort to such
steps as are necessary to put the accused back in jail to undergo the sentence.

State of U.P. vs. Sikandar Ali and Ors. (03.04.1998 - SC) : MANU/SC/0265/1998

Criminal - Murder - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Respondents in order to take revenge fired
two shots at deceased resulting in death of two persons - Session Court convicted appellant for offence
under Section 302 and sentenced them to death penalty - On appeal High Court acquitted both
respondents - Hence, present appeal - Witness No. 1 was real brother of one of deceased and witnesses
No. 2 was questioned only twenty days of occurrence and thus their evidentiary values had eroded - But
evidence of witnesses No. 1 was had gained entry in police records within hour of incident in which vivid
details of occurrence including full identity of assailants was recorded - Held, acquittal by High Court not
justified in view of strong evidence of witness No. 1 and 2 - Appeal allowed

State of U.P. vs. Sikandar Ali and Ors. (03.04.1998 - SC) : MANU/SC/0265/1998

In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/7108/2007 : (2007) 4 SCC 415, while
considering the similar issue, namely, appeal against acquittal and power of the appellate court to
reappreciate, review or reconsider evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal, this Court,
reiterated the principles laid down in the above decisions and further held that:

42...The following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions
of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

Mrinal Das and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura (05.09.2011 - SC) : MANU/SC/1030/2011

Mrinal Das and Ors. vs. The State of Tripura (05.09.2011 - SC) : MANU/SC/1030/2011

Criminal - private defence - Sections 302/149, 148, 447, 307 and 323 of Indian Penal Code - appeal
against judgment of Divisional Bench of High Court in acquitting accused - accused convicted for offence
under Section 302 - accused fully armed with premeditation to cause death and could not be said that
they did not have any intention of doing more harm than was necessary for purpose of private defence -
use of deadly force not justified to expel trespassers - accused convicted.HELD See paras 3, 13 and 15.

State of Rajasthan is aggrieved by the judgment dated May 1, 1996 of the Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) for two reasons: (1) acquitting Natthi, Karan Singh and Ram Bharosi
of offences under Sections 302/149, 149 and 447 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) though maintaining
their conviction for offence under Section 323 IPC but reducing their sentence to the rigorous
imprisonment already undergone by them; and (2) acquitting Makhan and Gokula of charges under
Sections 302, 148, 447 and 323 IPC and instead convicting each of them for offence under Section 307
IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of Rs. 2000
and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Gokula and Makhan have
appealed against the same very judgment against their conviction and sentence.

State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Bharosi and Ors. (12.08.1998 - SC) : MANU/SC/0509/1998

In our opinion this would not apply as form the findings on record it is clear that it was not a case where
the accused were exercising right of private defence without premeditation, and without any intention
of doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of self-defence, The accused were there fully
armed with premeditation to cause death and it could not be said that they did not have the intention of
doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of private defence. Clearly use of deadly force was
not justified merely to expel Shiv Ram and Vijay Kumar, alleged trespassers. It was nowhere the case of
the defence that there was no other way of getting them out of the land. The occasion certainly did not
warrant any action of self-defence.

State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Bharosi and Ors. (12.08.1998 - SC) : MANU/SC/0509/1998

State of law is explicit. In this view of the matter the High Court was not right in its conclusion. The
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained either in law or on the facts of the case. We, therefore,
allow the Criminal Appeal filed by the State, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of
the trial court. The result is that Makhan and Gokula are convicted under Section 302 IPC and each of
them sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Bharosi and Ors. (12.08.1998 - SC) : MANU/SC/0509/1998