Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Appellant was the first informant. He examined himself as
P.W.-1 before the learned trial Judge. The First Information Report, in question, was
lodged in relation to an incident which took place on 4.3.1998 alleging that the
respondent Nos. 2 to 10 came to the house of younger brother of the deceased( P.W.2)
and started quarrelling with him on the premise that the deceased(wife of P.W.1) had
made their sister's life miserable.
A Panchayat was to be convened in respect of the said disputes
between the parties. Panchayat, however, could not be held as its President( P.W.- 6)
had not been feeling well on the date on which it was to be held.
At about 10 p.m., the respondent No.2 to 10 came to the place of
occurrence. They abused the deceased saying:
"...you, whore, only because of you, our sister is separated and she will be in peace only if you die and you are the enemy."
Cut injuries were caused in the front side of the head of the
deceased with a sickle. Second Respondent allegedly assaulted the deceased with iron
pipe on the back of her neck. The other two respondents were armed with sticks. They also, allegedly, assaulted the deceased. P.W.2 having intervened was also
assaulted. The respondent No. 9 threatened P.W.7 that he would throw away her
minor child into the well and at that time P.W.7 snatched her minor son and while
doing so, the third respondent inflicted cut on her minor son. Respondent Nos. 6 and
8 attacked P.W.7 with sticks. When P.W.13 intervened to stop the attack on the minor
child of P.W.7, his ear was cut by the third respondent with the sickle. In the said
occurrence, allegedly, P.W.7 and P.W.13 were also assaulted.
The learned trial judge recorded a judgment of conviction and
sentence finding the respondents guilty of commission of offence.
At the instance of the accused No.4, allegedly, the weapon of
assault was also recovered.
The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment
set aside the said judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondents,
inter-alia, holding; (i) presence of P.W.-1 at the place of occurrence cannot be
believed as the prosecution has failed to establish the same; (ii) it is doubtful that
Ex.P.1 is the real First Information Report; (iii) as P.W.-13 in his statement before the
Doctor informed him that he had been attacked by two known persons and seven
unknown persons, his statement before the Court that he knew all the persons from
before, cannot be relied upon; (iv) the actual place of occurrence as also the genesis
thereof has not been established by the prosecution.
The High Court, however, did not analyse the evidence adduced
by the prosecution as noticed hereinbefore.
P.Ws.1,2,7,13 and 14 were examined as eye witnesses. The
manner in which the occurrence has taken place, as has been noticed at some length
by the High Court itself in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, deserved serious
consideration.
We are, thus, of the opinion that it was obligatory on the
part of the High Court to assign sufficient reasons for reversing the findings of the
learned trial Judge. We are not considering the materials on record ourselves deeply at this stage as interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned judgment is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the appeal
preferred by the respondents afresh on merits.
We make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of the matter and all
contentions of parties shall remain open. The High Court is requested to consider the
desirability of disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The appeal is allowed.
[S.B. SINHA]
New Delhi, September 17, 2008.