Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2085 OF 2008

Mookkiah & Anr.                    .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu                   .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  final  

judgment  and  order  dated  25.01.2007  passed  by  the  

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal  

No. 1137 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench of the High  

Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the  

order  of  acquittal  of  appellants  herein  dated  24.08.1998  

passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in  

Sessions Case No. 264 of 1996.  

1

Page 2

2) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal  

are as under:

(a) Uluppadi  Parai  is  a  small  village in  Ambasamudhram  

Taluk  within  Kallidaikurichi  Police  Station.   The  appellants  

herein  (A-1)  and  (A-2)  and  the  deceased  were  all  the  

residents  of  the  same  hamlet  situated  in  the  aforesaid  

village.  The residents of that hamlet had a nearby place as  

open air latrine which was situated near a water body.   

(b) The deceased Ramaiah, in this case, was the son-in-law  

of Ramaiah (PW-1), who also had the same name as that of  

the deceased.  Parvathi-daughter of PW-1, was married to  

the deceased-Ramaiah.  25 days prior to the incident, when  

she was  staying  at  the residence of  PW-1,  the  deceased-

Ramaiah  solicited  the  wife  of  Subbiah (A-2)  to  have illicit  

intercourse with him and A-2, after coming to know of such  

fact,  harboured enmity in  his  heart  against  the deceased.  

The  deceased  was  also  having  previous  enmity  with  

Mookkiah    (A-1), who was residing in the same village.  

(c) On 12.05.1992, at about 5.30 a.m., when the deceased  

Ramaiah went to the said open air latrine to attend to the  

2

Page 3

calls  of  the  nature,  A-1  and  A-2,  in  furtherance  of  their  

common intention to murder Ramaiah, dealt blows on him  

using aruval (billhooks), thereby killed him on the spot itself  

and fled away from the scene.  However, on the very same  

day, at about 05:30 hours, when Ramaiah (PW-1), the father-

in-law  of  the  deceased,  Sudalaimuthu  (PW-5)  and  

Shanmugam (PW-4) were returning after pouring water into  

their  field,  they heard the cries of  Ramaiah,  son-in-law of  

PW-1,  shouting  “Don’t  attack,  Don’t  attack”.   They  

immediately rushed to the spot and saw that the accused  

were  attacking  the  deceased-Ramaiah  on  his  head,  neck,  

shoulder  and back  with  their  aruval  and on  seeing  them,  

they fled away.  Ramaiah (PW-1) and Sudalaimuthu (PW-5)  

both witnessed the ghastly crime and despite they shouted  

at  the assailants not  to  perpetrate the gruesome act,  the  

accused accomplished their task of murdering the accused.   

(d) Thereupon,  PW-1,  PW-4,  PW-5  and  one  Kanaka  Raj,  

went to the Kallidaikurichi P.S. and PW-1 lodged a complaint  

against both the accused persons which was registered as  

3

Page 4

Crime No. 173 of 1992 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal  

Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).   

(e)  After  investigation,  both  the  accused  persons  were  

arrested  and  charges  were  framed  against  them  under  

Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and the case was  

committed to the Court of Session which was numbered as  

Sessions Case No. 264 of 1996.   

(f) By order dated 24.08.1998, the trial Court, after giving  

the  benefit  of  doubt,  acquitted  both  the  accused  of  the  

offences with which they were charged.  Being aggrieved by  

the  judgment  of  acquittal,  the  State  preferred  an  appeal  

being Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of 1998 before the Madurai  

Bench of the Madras High Court.  

(g) The High Court,  after  examining all  the materials,  by  

order dated 25.01.2007, reversed the judgment of acquittal  

and found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offence under Section  

302  read  with  Section  34  of  IPC  and  sentenced  them to  

suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life alongwith a fine of  

Rs.  5,000/-  each,  in  default,  to  further  undergo  RI  for  6  

months.   

4

Page 5

(h) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High  

Court, A-1 and A-2 (appellants herein) preferred an appeal  

before  this  Court  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  

India.  

3) Heard  Mr.  S.  Nanda  Kumar,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants-accused and Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned  

senior counsel and AAG for the respondent-State.

Interference in Appeal against Acquittal:

4) It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation  

of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution  

and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges  

leveled  against  them.   On appeal  by  the  State,  the  High  

Court,  by impugned order,  reversed the said decision and  

convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section  

34 of  IPC  and awarded RI  for  life.   Since  counsel  for  the  

appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has  

exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal  

into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the  

High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal  

This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down  

5

Page 6

that 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.  

[Vide  State  of  Rajasthan vs.  Sohan  Lal  and  Others,  

(2004) 5 SCC 573]   

5) In  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh vs.  Ramesh  and  

Another,  (2011) 4 SCC 786,  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  

6

Page 7

court  being  the  final  court  of  fact  is  fully  competent  to  reappreciate, 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.”

6) In  Minal  Das  and  Others vs.  State  of  Tripura,  

(2011) 9 SCC 479, while reiterating the very same position,  

one of us, P. Sathasivam, J. 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. When the trial court has ignored  the  evidence  or  misread  the  material  evidence  or  has  ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of  ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to  reverse the decision of  the trial  court  depending on the  materials placed.”

7) In Rohtash vs.  State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589,  

this Court held:

7

Page 8

“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. (Vide  State of Rajasthan v.  Talevar,  (2011)  11  SCC  666  and  Govindaraju v.  State,  (2012) 4 SCC 722)”

8) In a recent decision in  Murugesan & Ors. vs.  State  

Through Inspector of Police, 2012 (10) SCC 383, one of  

us  Ranjan  Gogoi,  J.  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 vs. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227  

(2)  and  series  of  subsequent  pronouncements  in  para  21  

summarized  various  principles  as  found  in  para  42  of  

Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC  

415 as under:          

“21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had  emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo  

8

Page 9

Swarup1 is  to  be  found  in  para  42  of  the  Report  in  Chandrappa v.  State  of  Karnataka.  The  same  may,  therefore, be usefully noticed below: (SCC p. 432) “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,  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.”

    (emphasis supplied)

9

Page 10

9) With the above principles, let us analyze the reasoning  

and ultimate conclusion of the High Court in interfering with  

the order of acquittal and awarding imprisonment for life.

10) Among  the  materials  placed  and  relied  on  by  the  

prosecution, complaint Exh.P-1, evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and  

5 are relevant.

Complaint (Exh.P-1):

11) The complaint Exh. P-1 dated 12.05.1992 was made by  

Ramaiah (PW-1).  In the complaint, it was stated that as his  

daughter-Parvathi  was  pregnant,  she  was  brought  to  his  

house for delivery and a female child was born to her 25  

days back.  After delivery, her daughter stayed in his house  

with her child and his son-in-law Ramaiah stayed with his  

parents.   It  was further  stated that  on 12.05.1992, in  the  

early morning,  about 05.30 hours,  when he was returning  

alongwith  Sudalaimuthu  and  Shanmugam  after  pouring  

water to the plantation, at that time, they heard the shouting  

of his son-in-law “Don’t kill me”.  On hearing the same, they  

rushed towards the spot and noticed that Subbiah (A-2) was  

having a big aruval (bill hook) in his hand and Mookkiah (A-1)  

10

Page 11

was holding a small aruval and were attacking on the face  

and back of Ramaiah-the deceased.  When all the three went  

there shouting “Don’t cut, Don’t cut”, at that time, Subbiah  

(A-2)  and  Mookkiah  (A-1)  ran  towards  eastern  direction.  

They noticed cut injuries on neck, shoulder back and head of  

his son-in-law and blood was oozing from the cut wounds.  

They also noticed that he was dead. Thereafter, all the three  

persons informed Alagamuthu,  father  of  Ramaiah and the  

Village Headman about the same and later they along with  

others saw the dead body of Ramaiah.  It was further stated  

that approx. one week before, Subbiah (A-2) met him and  

warned that  his  son-in-law Ramaiah called his  (Subbiah’s)  

wife Mukkammal for sex and he threatened that he won’t  

spare  him  and  as  per  the  say,  Subbiah  and  Mookkiah  

murdered his son-in-law Ramaiah.  Thereafter, he along with  

Sudalaimuthu,  Shanmugam,  Kanaka  Raj  came  to  

Kallidaikurichi  P.S.  at  about 08.00 hours and informed the  

same which was recorded on 12.05.1992 at 08.06 hours and  

registered as Crime No. 173/1992 under Section 302 IPC.  A  

perusal of Exh. P-1 complaint discloses the full narration of  

11

Page 12

the incident by PW-1 and the persons accompanied him and  

motive for murdering the deceased.  

Evidence of PW-1:        

12) Ramaiah (PW-1),  who is none else than the father-in-

law  of  the  deceased,  even  in  his  evidence  has  narrated  

before the court what he had stated in the complaint (Exh. P-

1).  He also identified M.O. I and M.O.II Aruvals (billhooks).  

He further stated that with M.O. I small aruval, the accused  

Mookkiah was attacking and M.O. II-big aruval was used by  

accused Subbiah.  He also noticed a pair of chappals (M.O.  

III),  underwear (M.O. IV) near the corpse of his son-in-law.  

He also stated that it was he who preferred complaint to the  

police.   The same was recorded by the Police Officer and  

attested by Kanaka Raj, Sudalaimuthu and Shanmugam.  He  

also  explained the statement  made by Subbiah  (A-2)  one  

week prior to the incident warning him that his son-in-law  

called his wife for sex and he won’t spare him for this.  Even  

in  lengthy  cross-examination,  he  withstood  his  stand  and  

reiterated that  he along with two others saw the accused  

murdering his son-in-law.  There is no reason to disbelieve  

12

Page 13

his version.  Though the trial Court has rejected his evidence  

because of his relationship, we are of the view that merely  

because  a  witness  is  related,  his  evidence  cannot  be  

eschewed.  On the other hand, it is the duty of the Court to  

analyze his evidence cautiously and scrutinize the same with  

other  corroborative  evidence.   The High  Court  has  rightly  

relied on his evidence and we fully agree with the course  

adopted by the High Court in relying upon his evidence.  

Evidence of PW-4:

13) Though  Shanmugam  (PW-4)  turned  hostile  at  one  

stage,  there is  no reason to reject  his  entire  evidence as  

unacceptable.  It was he who accompanied PW-1 at the early  

hours  and  noticed  that  the  accused  were  attacking  the  

deceased by use of bill hooks.  Similar to PW-1 and PW-5,  

PW-4  reiterated  that  he  accompanied  them  after  pouring  

water to their banana fields. Even though he did not support  

the prosecution case in its entirety, his version strengthen  

the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5.  

13

Page 14

Evidence of PW-5:  

14) Sudalaimuthu (PW-5) is a resident of Ulappadi Parai.  In  

his evidence, he has stated that 6 years back, on Chithirai  

month night, at about 8.00 p.m., when he was proceeding to  

banana thope to pass water, he noticed Ramaiah (PW-1) and  

Shanmugam  (PW-4)  were  also  passing  water.   After  

completing  the  work  at  the  early  morning,  roughly  05.30  

hours, while returning back along with PW-1 and PW-4, he  

heard a noise from the Southern side Ridge, namely, “Don’t  

cut, Don’t cut”.  On hearing the sound, all the three rushed  

to that place and noticed that Subbiah (A-2) and Mookkiah  

(A-1) were cutting the deceased Ramaiah.  He further stated  

that on seeing them the accused ran away from the spot and  

they found that  Ramaiah was done to death.  They reported  

the  incident  to  Nattammai Kanak  Raj  in  the  village  and,  

thereafter,  went  to  the  P.S.  around  08.00  o’clock  and  

Ramaiah (PW-1) gave a statement to the police.  In the said  

statement, viz., Exh. P-1, he also signed as a witness.  He  

identified his signature in Ex.P-1.  He was also present when  

the police inspected the scene of occurrence and during the  

14

Page 15

course of inquest.   In the cross-examination, he reiterated  

what he had stated in the Chief-Examination.   

15) A perusal of the evidence of PW-5 clearly shows that it  

corroborates  with  the  statement  made  by  PW-1  in  all  

aspects.   It  also shows that PWs 1, 4 and 5 went to their  

banana fields to pour water during the said night and while  

returning back after finishing the work at around 5.30 a.m.,  

they  noticed  the  accused  causing  fatal  injuries  on  the  

deceased by use of aruvals (billhooks).  It also shows that all  

of them went to the P.S. and PW-1 made a complaint and  

other two attested the contents of Exh.P-1.  The High Court  

has rightly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 and on  

going through their entire statement, we fully agree with the  

course adopted by the High Court.  

Evidence of PW-2:

16) Dr.  Tmt.  Bhanumathi,  (PW-2)  who  conducted  post  

mortem on the dead body of  the  deceased Ramaiah  was  

examined  as  PW-2.   The  post  mortem  report  has  been  

marked as Exh. P-3.  In Exh.P-3, the doctor has noted the  

following injuries:

15

Page 16

“Injuries:  (1)  An incised wound extending from lower part of  right  cheek, above mandible, directed downwards to the middle  of back of neck; obliquely placed and of sixe 14X6X6 cms.  Blood vessels, muscles, C3, C4, vertebra cut, head partially  hanging and blood clots present.  (2) An incised wound on centre of forehead close to midline  extending to middle of scalp vertical in direction directed  upwards and backwards size 14X4X6 cms. Underlying bone  cut and brain matter coming out through the wound.   (3) An incised wound extending from middle of right side of  back to right side of shoulder of size 20X6X6 cms. Oblique  in direction,  overlapping cut injuries on inferur  border of  wound,  muscles,  blood  vessels  cut,  blood  clots  present.  Right scapula injured and dislocated.  (4) An incised wound on right side of lower part of back  below injury no.3, oblique in direction 12X4X2 cms. Blood  vessels, muscles cut and blood clots present.  (5) An incised wound horizontal in direction 18X6X8 cms.  Extending  from left  lower  part  of  back  of  left  waist  fort  side.  (6) An incised wound above injury no.5 oblique in direction  on left  side  of  lower  part  of  back  to  right  side crossing  spine 12X6X4 cms. Blood vessels, muscles cut in the same  direction.  (7) An incised wound on upper third of upper arm right, on  lateral side extending to back of 12 X 4 shoulder, oblique in  direction, blood vessels, muscles cut.  (8) An incised would on right upper arm, upper third on  medical aspect, skin depth 5 X 2 cms. obliquely placed.”  

17) As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  State  counsel,  the  cut  

injuries observed by the doctor tally with the narration given  

by  PW-1  in  Exh.P-1  as  well  as  in  his  evidence  and  the  

evidence of PW-5.  The doctor also opined that the death of  

the deceased might have occurred 28-30 hours prior to the  

post mortem.  It is not in dispute that the doctor commenced  

16

Page 17

the  post mortem on 13.05.1992 at 10.30 hours and as per  

the prosecution case, the death of the deceased occurred at  

05.30 a.m. on 12.05.1992.  A perusal of these details clearly  

show that the opinion given by the doctor tallies with the  

prosecution version that the death might have occurred 28-

30 hours prior to the post mortem. The trial Court, taking  

note of the evidence of PW-2 that there were around 300  

grams semi digested food particles (rice) in the stomach of  

the  deceased,  disbelieved  the  time  of  occurrence  as  

projected  by  the  prosecution.   It  is  true  that  PW-2,  while  

deposing  before  the  Court,  answered  in  the  cross-

examination that the death might have occurred 34 hours  

prior  to  her  performing  the  post  mortem and  the  partly  

undigested  rice  would  show  that  rice  might  have  been  

consumed  by  the  deceased  2-3  hours  before  his  death.  

However, the Investigation Officer (PW-11), during the cross-

examination,  highlighted  that  during  the  course  of  his  

investigation,  he  ascertained  from  the  father  of  the  

deceased that the deceased consumed food at 11.00 p.m.  

during the said intervening night.  As rightly observed by the  

17

Page 18

High  court,  since  the  parties  are  hailing  from  a  remote  

village, the villagers might take food even at odd hours after  

finishing  certain  work  in  their  fields  and  it  cannot  be  

precisely  predict  based  on  the  undigested  food  particles  

alone.   The  High  Court  has  adverted  to  Modi’s  Medical  

Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition and after noting  

all  the  relevant  details  has  rightly  concluded  that  the  

observation  of  the  doctor  relating  to  the  injuries  and  her  

general opinion at the time of death which occurred 28-30  

hours  tally  with  the  narration  of  eye-witnesses  and  

concluded that in such a case mere inference of the doctor  

with reference to undigested food particles could not threw  

the prosecution case.  We fully agree with the discussion and  

the ultimate conclusion on this  aspect  by the High Court.  

The evidence of PWs 1 and 5 coupled with the version in  

Exh.P-1 would state that the occurrence took place at 5.30  

a.m.  while  the  deceased  was  passing  stool,  as  such,  the  

timings  mentioned  by  the  doctor,  occurrence  and  other  

witnesses tally with the narration.  Accordingly, we reject the  

contention  raised  by  the  counsel  for  the  appellants  with  

18

Page 19

reference  to  existence  of  undigested  particles  n  the  post  

mortem by PW-2.  

Other objections:    

18) Though  an  argument  was  advanced  that  there  was  

delay  in  filing  the  FIR  in  the  Court  of  the  Magistrate,  a  

perusal of the details placed by the prosecution show that  

the occurrence took place at 05.30 a.m. on 12.05.1992 and  

the FIR was registered on the same day at 08.00 hrs. and the  

Magistrate received the FIR on the same day at 02.00 p.m.  

As  rightly  observed  by  the  High  Court,  it  cannot  be  

presumed that there was inordinate delay in reaching the  

FIR to the Magistrate Court.  Further, it has come in evidence  

that Kallidaikurichi P.S. is situated at a distance which could  

be covered by cycle in 45 minutes and Abdul Rahman (PW-

9),  Police  Constable  Grade-I,  who  was  attached  with  

Kallidaikurichi P.S. at the relevant time has explained in his  

evidence that he took the complaint (Exh.P-1) and the FIR to  

the Magistrate Court and reached at around 10.00 or 10.15  

19

Page 20

a.m.  but  by  that  time  Magistrate  Court’s  sitting  was  

commenced.   PW-9  further  explained  that  when  he  

approached the Head Clerk,  he informed PW-9 to  hand it  

over to the Magistrate after the sitting hour was over as it  

happened  to  be  an  express  FIR.   There  is  no  reason  to  

disbelieve the version of the Police Constable (PW-9) and we  

hold  that  absolutely,  there  is  no  delay  at  all  in  either  

registering the FIR or dispatching the same to the Magistrate  

Court.  

19) We have already noticed the motive as spoken to by PW-

1 both in his evidence as well as in Exh.P-1.  It was pointed  

out that no blood stains were noticed in the M.Os I, II and III,  

namely, aruvals (bill hooks) and dress in the FSL report.  It  

was explained that  since  these objects  were lying  on  the  

earth  and  by  efflux  of  time,  no  blood  was  found  by  the  

laboratory because of which the same cannot be doubted  

when  the  same  were  duly  recovered  in  the  presence  of  

witnesses.  

20) In the light  of  the above discussion,  we are satisfied  

that the trial Court failed to take note of relevant aspects  

20

Page 21

and  committed  a  grave  error  in  rejecting  the  reliable  

materials  placed  by  the  prosecution.   The  High  Court  as  

appellate  court,  analyzed  the  evidence  as  provided  in  

Section 378 of the Code and rightly reversed the order of  

acquittal  and  found  A-1  and  A-2  guilty  of  offence  under  

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murdering Ramaiah  

in  pursuance  of  their  common  intention  and  awarded  

sentence of life imprisonment.  We fully agree with the said  

conclusion.   

21) Consequently,  the  appeal  fails  and  the  same  is  

dismissed.  

………….…………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                  (RANJAN GOGOI)  

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 04, 2013.

21