Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 91 (CHH)

STATE OF M. P. v. DHANESHWAR SONI

2013-03-07

PRITINKER DIWAKER, YATINDRA SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.6.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No, 52/1996 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge under Sections 302 and 457 IPC. 2. In the case in hand there are two deceased namely Narendra Singh Thakur and Motilal Gupta, As per the case of the prosecution, in the intervening night of 5/6.10.1995 respondent/accused entered the office of M.P.A.K.V.N. for committing theft and found both the deceased who were working there as security guards, sleeping. Further case of the prosecution is that before committing the theft, respondent/accused committed the murder of both the deceased by assaulting with hammer and crowbar and thereby causing injury on their head. It is alleged that respondent/accused failed to commit the offence of theft and when he was running away from the spot, he met V.K. Pandey (PW-8) - SHO of police station City Kotwali, Raipur and some other officers and during interrogation he failed to give satisfactory answer but later on he confessed that he was running ayvay after committing the murder of Narendra Singh Thakur and Motilal Gupta. On 6.10.1995 at 4.45 a.m. memorandum of respondent/accused Ex. P-1 was recorded and based on that at 4.50 a.m. recovery of two dead bodies was made vide Ex. P-2. At the spot itself Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-18 was recorded at 4.55 a.m. by V.K. Pandey (PW-8) and subsequently registered Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-17 was recorded at 5.05 a.m. by V.K. Pandey (PW-8) himself. Merg intimation Ex. P-19 was recorded at 5.10 a.m. by V.K. Pandey (PW-8) and based on that, two separate FIRs were registered vide Ex. P-23 and P-24 by S.K. Jangde at 5.25 and 5.35 a.m. respectively against the respondent/accused under Section 302 IPC. Other memorandum of respondent/accused was recorded at 6.25 a.m. vide Ex. P3 and based on that, recovery was made vide Ex. P4 at 8 a.m. by which one hammer, crowbar and key bunch were seized at the instance of respondent/accused. Postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased was conducted on 6.10.1995 vide Ex. P-15 and P-16 by Dr. Arvind Nerulwar (PW6) and according to him cause of death was coma due to head injuries. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 30.12.1995 under Section 302 IPC. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses. P-15 and P-16 by Dr. Arvind Nerulwar (PW6) and according to him cause of death was coma due to head injuries. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 30.12.1995 under Section 302 IPC. 3. In support of its case the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned the Court below has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges leveled against him. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that present case is based on circumstantial evidence against the respondent/accused and the circumstances are so strong that only one view is possible i.e. conviction. He submits that immediately after murder of the aforesaid two persons, respondent/accused was apprehended by V.K. Pandey (PW-8) and other police officials in suspicious circumstances and this has been proved by Satpal Singh (PW -1), Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3), Suresh Kumar Sharma (PW-5), Ram Krishna Mishra (PW-7) and V.K. Pandey (PW-8). He further submits that other strong circumstance against the respondent/accused is that dead bodies were recovered at his instance and he even identified the same. To substantiate this argument, he placed reliance on the memorandum Ex. P-1 and recovery Ex. P-2. Another circumstance, according to the State counsel is that recovery of blood stained articles like pant of respondent/accused was made under Ex. P-6 and hammer used in the commission of crime and key bunch was made under Ex. P-4. He submits that as per the FSL report Ex. P-31 blood was found on the pant and hammer seized at the instance of the respondent/accused and in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. no satisfactory explanation was offered by him. According to the State counsel, there was strong motive for the respondent/accused to commit the murder of two persons namely Narendra Singh Thakur and Motilal Gupta because he entered the premises of M.P.A.K.V.N. with an intention to commit theft and as the deceased were sleeping there, he first thought of committing their murder before committing the offence of theft. According to the State counsel, there was strong motive for the respondent/accused to commit the murder of two persons namely Narendra Singh Thakur and Motilal Gupta because he entered the premises of M.P.A.K.V.N. with an intention to commit theft and as the deceased were sleeping there, he first thought of committing their murder before committing the offence of theft. He further submits that an attempt was made by the respondent/accused to commit theft because the plate of the locker in which handle was fitted was found half broken for which memorandum Ex. P-8 was drawn. He submits that there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statement of the police officials in particular that of Sat pal Singh (PW-1) and Ram Krishna Mishra (PW-7) and V.K. Pandey PW-8) before whom respondent/accused admitted the fact that he was running after committing the murder of aforesaid two persons. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/accused submits that there are discrepancies in the statements of PW-1 namely Satpal Singh, PW7 Ram Krishna Mishra and PW-8 Vishwa Kumar Pnadey. According to him, from the evidence of these witnesses it is apparent that they have not disclosed the correct facts before the Court. He submits that as per the case of the prosecution on 05.10.1995 some theft was committed in the house of Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3) and intimation was given to all the Police stations regarding the same and when CSP namely Satpal Singh (PW-1) and DSP R. K. Mishra (PW-7) who were taking round in different vehicles reached the spot where they suspected the respondent/accused. He submits that respondent/accused was apprehended by PW-1 and PW-7 and then Vishwa Kumar Pandey (PW-8) also reached there. Thereafter memorandum of the respondent/accused was recorded. According to him, it was not a co-incidence where PW-1, 7 & 8 gathered at a particular place and found the respondent/accused in a suspicious condition but present is a case where entire story has been cooked up by the prosecution just because in the office of M.P.A.K.V.N. two security guards were murdered but the Police could not catch hold of the real culprit. He submits that memoranda of respondent/accused Ex.P-1 & P-3 have not been signed by the respondent/accused and therefore the same cannot be used against him and the recovery based on those memoranda also loses its significant. He submits that memoranda of respondent/accused Ex.P-1 & P-3 have not been signed by the respondent/accused and therefore the same cannot be used against him and the recovery based on those memoranda also loses its significant. He submits that in a case of appeal against acquittal the appellate Court cannot alter the judgment passed by the Court below acquitting the accused when two views are possible, one favouring the accused which has been taken by the Court below. In support of his argument, counsel for the respondent/accused placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 2345 . 8. Satpal Singh (PW-1) has stated that at the relevant time he was working as CSP at City Kotwali, Raipur and Ravishanker University Police Station and Azad Chowk Police Station were also under him. According to this witness, when he was on patrolling duty in the intervening night of 5/6-10.1995 at about 3 a.m. he received an information on his wireless set that some thieves had entered the house of Gajraj Pagaria who at that time was Deputy Mayor. When he reached the house of Gajraj Pagaria, the came to know that the thieves had already left the spot. He then took Gajraj Pagaria, his brother and his servant in his vehicle and went towards Kabristan in search of the thieves. He has stared that through wireless he communicated all those persons who were on patrolling duty about the incident of theft and number of Police officers from different Police Stations also reached near Kabristan and with the help of search light they all tried to search thieves but could not find them. At that point of time they saw one person coming near the building of FSL, they apprehended him who then disclosed that in the office of M.P.A.K.V.N. he had entered for committing theft and killed two persons. This witness has further stated that memorandum of respondent/accused was recorded by T.I.V.K. Pandey (PW-8) and thereafter the Police party reached the place as disclosed by the respondent/accused and found two dead bodies in two rooms. Thereafter respondent/accused took the police on the second floor where he had made an attempt to break open the locker. This witness has further stated that memorandum of respondent/accused was recorded by T.I.V.K. Pandey (PW-8) and thereafter the Police party reached the place as disclosed by the respondent/accused and found two dead bodies in two rooms. Thereafter respondent/accused took the police on the second floor where he had made an attempt to break open the locker. Thereafter respondent/accused also disclosed to Police about the weapons used by him i.e. hammer and other weapons and then respondent/accused disclosed the fact that he had kept the same in a water tank and based on this memorandum weapons and other articles were seized. In cross-examination, this witness has further elaborated about the entire tact including duty hours, receipt of information on wireless and catching hold of the respondent/accused. G. Suresh Moorthy (PW-2) who at that time was working as sub-engineer in M.P.A.K.V.N has stated that deceased Narendra Singh Thakur and Motilal Gupta were security guards in the M.P.A.K.V.N whereas respondent/accused was Sweeper. He has stated that in his presence Police made inquiry from the respondent/accused and his memorandum EX.P-1 was recorded based on which two dead bodies, key bunch, hammer and other articles were seized vide Ex.P-2 & P-4. He has stated that recovery of key bunch and other al1icles was made on the basis of memorandum of respondent/accused vide EX.P-3. He has stated that certain other articles like full pant, shirt, cycle etc. were seized in his presence under EX.P-5 and likewise full pant of the accused, slippers and cycle were seized under EX.P-6. Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3) - an independent witness has stated that in the intervening night of 5/6- 10.1995 incident of theft had taken place in a house situated at Vivekanand Nagar and when he informed the Police Control room about the same at about 2.30-3 a.m. CSP Satpal Singh (PW-1) came to his house along with some Police Constables and took him and his servants in the Police vehicle to search the accused. On the way they met one Police officer Mishra who was in his Jeep and then officers in both the Jeeps started searching the thief and then they saw the respondent/accused in a suspicious condition. He saw the blood on the leg and clothes of the said person and suspected him to be a thief. Police officer though made an enquiry from him, he could not give satisfactory answer. He saw the blood on the leg and clothes of the said person and suspected him to be a thief. Police officer though made an enquiry from him, he could not give satisfactory answer. He then is stated to have disclosed the Police that he had not committed any theft but committed the murder in the office of M.P.A.K.V.N. Thereafter respondent/accused was taken to the office of M.P.A.K.V.N where door was found open and the respondent/ accused informed them that it was office of M.P.A.K.V.N and when they went inside they found one dead person on the table from whose head blood was coming. When respondent/accused was again enquired, he disclosed the Police that there was a chest in the first floor of the office and he had come there to take money from the chest and then committed the murder. He has stated that two persons went on the first floor and he was standing on the ground floor with the respondent/accused and then the respondent/accused further disclosed the fact to him and one Suresh Sharma that he had committed one more murder and the body was in a different room. Thereafter he put his signature on the memorandum EX.P-1 and seizure Ex.P-2. Respondent/accused further disclosed the fact that weapon used in the commission of murder of two persons was thrown in the water tank and thereafter he left for his house. Though this witness was cross-examined at length, except minor discrepancies he remained very firm while deposing the things. An attempt was made by the defence to establish that in fact the Police officers were not there at the place of incident and the entire story was cooked up by the Police but the defence has failed to prove the same. Dayaram Wadhwani (PW-4) who at that time was General Manager of M.P.A.K.V.N has stated that respondent/ accused was working as a sweeper and that he received an information from the Police vide EX.P-10 and saw two dead bodies and was asked by the Police to identify the same. He has stated that he found injuries on both the dead bodies and blood was also there nearby. He has stated that he was informed by the manager about the entire incident in the morning hours. He has stated that he found injuries on both the dead bodies and blood was also there nearby. He has stated that he was informed by the manager about the entire incident in the morning hours. Suresh Kumar Sharma (PW-5) who was working as a carpenter in the house of Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3) has stated that he saw respondent/accused on the date of incident and duly signed EX.P-1 & P-2. He however has stated that no recovery was made in his presence and then he was declared hostile. Dr. Arvind Nerulwar (PW6) is the witness who conducted postmortem examination on the bodies of the deceased vide EX.P-15 & P-16. He found number of injuries on the body of Motilal Gupta of which description has been given by him in paragraph-2 of his statement. According to him Motilal died due to comma as a result of head injury caused by hard and blunt object and the death was homicidal in nature. He also found number of injuries on the body of deceased Narendra Singh Thakur of which description has been given by him in paragraph-5 of his statement. According to him, he died due to comma as a result of head injury caused by hard and blunt object and the death was homicidal in nature. Ram Krishna Mishra (PW-7) who at that time was posted as DSP, Raipur has stated that in the intervening night of 5/6.10.1995 he was on patrolling duty and at about 3 a.m. he received a message on his wireless that some theft had taken place in the house of Deputy Mayor -Gajraj Pagaria. When he reached the house of Pagaria he was informed by him that some Police officers were already in search of the thief. Then he forwarded the said information to other Police stations on wireless and near Kabristan search was made. Information was also given to Satpal Singh (PW -1). When he reached the house of Pagaria he was informed by him that some Police officers were already in search of the thief. Then he forwarded the said information to other Police stations on wireless and near Kabristan search was made. Information was also given to Satpal Singh (PW -1). Near Kabristan they saw one person coming and after seeing the light the said person stopped and on enquiry as to from where he was coming he disclosed that he was coming from duty and on further interrogation he informed that he had a quarrel with the Chowkidar and at that time Satpal Singh and Gajraj Pagaria also reached there and on seeing the blood on his leg, he again asked him as to how blood spots were there but the respondent/accused could not give satisfactory answer and was stammering. Then all of them went to the office of the M.P.A.K.V.N and on the way the respondent/accused disclosed that he had committed the murder and in the office two dead bodies were found drenched with blood. Respondent/accused also informed him that he made an attempt to take cash from the office and break open the chest fitted on the wall but he failed to do so. He has stated that he had killed two security guards because he was apprehending that they would implicate him in the offence of theft. At that time SHO Pandey was also there and on the basis of disclosure statement made by respondent/accused keys, hammer and other articles were seized from the water tank and when hammer was shown to him he told that it was taken out by the deceased. In lengthy cross-examination also barring certain minor contradictions and omissions he remained very firm and elaborated the entire proceedings drawn by the Police. Vishwa Kumar Pandey (PW-8) is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the case of the Prosecution. He recorded memorandum of the respondent/accused EX.P-1 in the presence of Suresh Sharma and Gajraj Pagaria in which respondent/accused admitted the commission of murder of both the deceased persons and that he would get the dead bodies recovered. Accordingly, the dead bodies were recovered at the instance of respondent/accused vide EX.P-2. He recorded memorandum of the respondent/accused EX.P-1 in the presence of Suresh Sharma and Gajraj Pagaria in which respondent/accused admitted the commission of murder of both the deceased persons and that he would get the dead bodies recovered. Accordingly, the dead bodies were recovered at the instance of respondent/accused vide EX.P-2. In the memorandum respondent/accused has further stated that he attacked both the deceased persons with hammer which was kept by him in the water tank along with the key bunch and then vide Ex.P-4 recovery of weapons used in the offence was made along with the key bunch and several other articles. This witness has completed the entire investigation including seizure, sending the bodies for postmortem examination etc. 9. From the evidence on record it emerges that on 06.10.1995 at about 4.45 a.m. Memorandum of respondent/accused EX.P-1 was recorded and based on that two dead bodies were recovered at 4.50 a.m. under EX.P-2. On the basis of another memorandum of respondent/accused recorded at 7.25 a.m. vide Ex.P-3 various articles were seized by the Police at 8 a.m. under EX.P-4. Immediately after memorandum EX.P-I and recovery of two dead bodies made under Ex.P-2, at 4.55 a.m. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-18 was recorded and that at 5.5 a.m. registered Dehati Nalishi EX.P-17 was recorded. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-17 was initially recorded without number shown as 0/95 and later on crime number has been mentioned in the same. However, subsequently showing crime number in this document does not mean that it was not recorded initially and to fulfill the lacuna the same was recorded. Mere mentioning the crime number in this document does not falsify the same and crime number could be mentioned subsequently also. Acquittal of the respondent/accused thus does not appear to be justifiable. Though there is no direct evidence of eye witnesses in this case and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence, the law in this respect is well settled. In the matter of Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra it has been held by the Apex Court that when a case rest on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following three tests: (i) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established, (ii) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused. (iii) The circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In the case in hand, from the evidence collected by the prosecution following circumstances are there against respondent/accused: (i) On the early morning of 6.10.1995 respondent/accused was found in a suspicious condition by the Police Officers Satpal Singh (PW-1), Ram Krishna Mishra (PW-7) and Vishwa Kumar Pandey (PW-8) and this has also been supported by independent witness Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3). (ii) On the basis of memorandum Ex. P-1 of respondent/accused recovery of dead bodies was made under Ex.P-2 from the office of M.P.A.K.V.N. (iii) On the basis of memorandum Ex.P-3 of respondent/accused weapons along with key bunch and several other articles were seized under EX.P-4. (iv) Blood was found in most of the seized articles from the accused and from the spot vide FSL report Ex.P-31. (v) Blood was also found in other articles seized under Ex.P-6. (vi) There was a strong motive on the part of respondent/accused to commit the murder of the deceased persons because they were working as security guards and the respondent/accused entered the office of M.P.A.K.V.N for committing theft from the chest which unfortunately was not opened and recovery of half broken handle was made at his instance. (vii) One of the witnesses namely Gajraj Pagaria has duly proved memorandum Ex.P-1 and recovery made on the basis of that under Ex.P-2 by which two dead bodies were recovered. 10. G. Suresh Moorthy (PW-2) is a witness to memorandum of respondent/accused Ex.P-2 and based on that a recovery was made under Ex.P4. He has duly proved these two documents and supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to show as to why the prosecution witnesses would depose falsety against the respondent/accused as no relevant question was put to them by the defence. He has duly proved these two documents and supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to show as to why the prosecution witnesses would depose falsety against the respondent/accused as no relevant question was put to them by the defence. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3) because he was an independent witness and there is no evidence on record that he had no good relations with the respondent/accused. We do not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the respondent/accused that as in the memorandum of respondent/accused Ex.P-1 and P-3 his signature were not obtained, they cannot be used against him and any recovery based on that loses its significance because there is no such requirement of law that memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act has to be signed by the person who had given said statement. Judgment cited by respondent/accused is distinguishable in the present case because in the case in hand witnesses to memorandum have duly supported the case of the prosecution and recovery based thereon. Likewise Investigating officer has also duly proved the memoranda EX.P-1 & P-3. Further based on these two memoranda recovery under EX.P-2 & P-4 has been effected which has also been proved not only by the Investigating officer but also by the independent witness. In the case of Jackaran, AIR 1995 SC 2345 (Supra) there was no supportive evidence and therefore an observation was made by the Supreme Court regarding the disclosure statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. However in the present case situation is entirely different. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not postulate that a voluntary statement must be signed by the maker and thumb impression must be affixed to it. The Supreme Court on special facts, in the circumstances and for the reasons set out in the said judgments desired that signature or thumb impression ought to have been in the statement as that would inspire confidence in the mind of the Court since there was no supportive evidence. Facts of the present case are entirely different where memorandum EX.P-1 has been duly proved by Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3) and based on that recovery of two dead bodies was made under EX.P-2. Facts of the present case are entirely different where memorandum EX.P-1 has been duly proved by Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3) and based on that recovery of two dead bodies was made under EX.P-2. Similar is the position with respect to another memorandum of the accused EX.P-3 based on which recovery was made under EX.P-4 which has been duly proved by G. Suresh Moorthy (PW-2). In Criminal Appeal No.7058/2007 (Krishna Kumar alias Pappu Vs. State of U.P.) it has been held by the Division Bench of Allahabad as under: "29. In our opinion, it cannot be said, as a matter of law that: • The signatures of the accused have to be obtained on the recovery memo; or • An endorsement is required that the accused has refused to accept it; and Merely failure to do so, vitiates the recovery. If there were such a provision, then it might run afoul of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India." In the case of Golakanda Venkateswara Rao Vs. State of A.P., 2003 SCC(Cri) 1904 it has been held by the Supreme Court: • Disclosure and recovery memos were not signed by the accused; and • Some of the recovered articles were not even produced before the court; and • It was a case of circumstantial evidence, Yet the Supreme Court distinguished the Jackaran case. The Court relying upon the memos upheld the conviction. The court observed : 'Every case has to be decided on its own facts. The facts of that case [the Jackaran case] do not fit in the facts of the case at hand ... In the instant case, while it is true that neither the disclosure statement nor the recovery memo bear the signatures of the accused but the fact remains that pursuant to the disclosure statement MOs have been recovered from the well and dug out from a place which is pointed out by the appellant, leaves no manner of doubt that the recovery of Mos has been made on the basis of the voluntary disclosure statement. Further, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram, 1999 SCC(Cri) 436 it has been held as under: 'The resultant position is that the investigating officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure-memo for the recovery of any article covered by section 27 of the Evidence Act. Teja Ram, 1999 SCC(Cri) 436 it has been held as under: 'The resultant position is that the investigating officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure-memo for the recovery of any article covered by section 27 of the Evidence Act. But if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it.' 11. As already stated, in the present case the facts are entirely different and non-obtaining signature of respondent/accused on his memorandum is of no help to him. True it is that in an appeal against acquittal normally the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below but it is equally true that if the Court below has based the acquittal on perverse reasoning, the appellate Court can always interfere the same if there is strong evidence to do so. In the present case the trial Court has recorded an incorrect findings in paragraphs-14-16 of the judgment impugned and merely on the basis of minor discrepancies in the statement of Police officers namely Satpal Singh PW-1, R. K. Mishra (PW-7) and Vishwa Kumar Pandey (PW-8) respondent/accused cannot be acquitted. Trial Court has completely lost sight of the fact that apart from the Police officers independent witnesses namely G. Suresh Moorthy (PW -2) and Gajraj Pagaria (PW-3) are also there and have supported the case of the prosecution. 12. In the case of Mookkiah and another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, (2013)2 SCC 89 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under: "10. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that: "3..........as the first appellate Court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal." 11. In State of M.P. v. Ramesh this Court, while considering the scope and interference in appeal against acquittal held: "15. we are fully alive of the fact that we are dealing with an appeal against acquittal and in the absence of perversity in the said judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. It is settled proposition of law that the appellate court being the final court of fact is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. Law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court and there can be no quarrel to the said legal proposition that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal." 12. In Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura, while reiterating the very same position, the Supreme Court held: "14. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are 'compelling and substantial reasons' for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable', it is a compelling reason for interference. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are 'compelling and substantial reasons' for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable', it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents tike dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the material placed." 13. In Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana this Court held: "27. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal .recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 14. In a recent decision in Murugesan v. State, the Supreme Court elaborately considered the broad principles of law governing the power of-the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while hearing the appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge: After adverting to the principles of law laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor and a series of subsequent pronouncements, in para 21 summarised various principles as found in para 42 of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka as under: "21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: '42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, 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, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: '42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, 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, re-appreciate 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 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 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." 13. Thus findings recorded by the Court below being contrary to the material available on the record are liable to be set aside. Appeal is thus allowed. Judgment impugned is hereby set aside. Accused/appellant is convicted under Section 302 we and sentenced to, imprisonment for life. He be sent to jail forthwith. Appeal Allowed.