TMI Blog1951 (12) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h October, 1947. 2. The facts which were put before the court on behalf of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows. There is a plot No. 518 in Nagaria Patti Chaharum, village Shahgarh in the district of Aligarh which is about 30 bighas in area and is known as the teesa field. This plot was the sir land of several landlords including Mst. Bhagwati Kuer and Ratan Singh and had been let out to certain tenants. In 1944, Mst. Bhagwati Kuer, Ratan Singh and their co-sharers filed a suit for the ejectment of the tenants, and the suit was decreed. On the 7th June, 1945, possession over the plot was delivered by the Amin to Surajpal Singh, the first appellant, who was the mukhtar-i-Am of Mst. Bhagwati Kuer. It was contended on behalf of Surajpal Singh that he took possession on behalf of all the co-sharers, but certain statements made by Ratan Singh in his evidence do not support this contention. However that may be, it appears that on the 17th June, 1945, Ratan Singh reported to the police that he had sent his labourers to irrigate the teesa field, and while they were irrigating it Surajpal Singh and certain other persons came and tried to stop the irrigation and damaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not proved the accused could not be convicted for having caused disappearance of evidence connected with it. The Judge also held that the evidence being unreliable the charge under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The High Court delivered its judgment on the 8th May, 1947, allowing the appeal of the State Government. Shortly stated, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court was that Ratan Singh had as much right to the possession of the field as Bhagwati Kuer, that both parties were trying to take exclusive possession of the field, that both parties were prepared for all contingencies to vindicate and enforce their rights, and hence the question of private defence wholly immaterial and no right of private defence could be successfully pleaded by the appellants. 5. A perusal of the two judgments before us shows that while the Sessions Judge took great pains to discuss all the important aspects of the case and to record his opinion on every material point, the learned Judges of the High Court have reversed his decision without displacing the very substantial reasons given by him in support of his conclusion. The differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been established that at least four persons on the side of the accused had received injuries. Mahindarpal had received no less than 16 injuries, and his condition was serious for some time. Karan Singh had 12 injuries, one of which was grievous. Hari Singh had received 7 injuries including a grievous injury, and Nikka Singh also was injured, his injury having been noticed by the investigating sub-inspector. 7. In the prosecution evidence, it was stated that many of the accused persons were armed with lathis and had used them, and it would be strange if it was not proved that any of the persons on their side had any injuries attributable to lathis. It has been established that the four injured persons of Ratan Singh's party, viz. Rajpal Singh, Lakhan Singh, Behari Singh and Zorawar Singh, had only gun-shot wounds. A serious question which arises in this case is at what stage the gun was used, and whether it was used in self-defence after the members of the appellants' party were assaulted with lathis or it was used before they were assaulted. 8. The prosecution witnesses had to admit that at first a gun was fired twice in the air and then the actual firing took pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory and suspicious and we entertain grave doubts as to whether suspicious and we entertain grave doubts as to whether Deva Sukh received any injuries at all. 9. Dr. Shankar Deo, who examined Deva Sukh, is a retired Sub-Assistant Surgeon practising in Kauiraganj, which is not far from village Shahgarh. 10. He admits that he had known Ratan Singh since his childhood, and when he was a child he used to be taught at the house of Ratan Singh by a teacher employed by Ratan Singh's uncle. He has stated that Deva Sukh had two bruises across the back of the middle of the left forearm, and one of them was grievous since the left ulna was fractured. He further says that at the time of examination he did charge fees from Deva Sukh, that he was brought to him three days after the other injured persons, that when the latter group of persons came to him none of them told him that there was one more injured person to be examined, and that Deva Sukh was brought to him by Ratan Singh's servant. There are unsatisfactory features in the evidence of this doctor relating to other matters which need not be referred to, but what is somewhat remarkable is that though there is a District B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich should normally be attached to that of the trial court. 13. It is well-established that in an appeal under section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well-settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. 14. On the whole, we are inclined to hold that the Sessions Judge had taken a reasonable view of the facts of the case, and in our opinion there were no good reasons for reversing that view. The assessors with whose aid the trial was held, were unanimously of the opinion that the accused were not guilty, and though 25 persons were placed on trial on identical evidence, the State Government preferred an appeal only against 5 of them on the sole ground that the acquittal was against the weight of evidence on the record. 15. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
