TOTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Shri A. N. Mulla, Sr. Advocate for appellants and Shri R. S. Sodhi, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and having carefully examined all aspects of the case in the light of the submissions made at the Bar, we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that this appeal has to be allowed.

(2.) The four appellants before us - Tota Singh, Dauli Singh, Mithu Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were tried by the Court of Session, Faridkot on charges under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and Section 323, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence adduced in the case, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated May 30, 1974 acquitted the appellants of all the charges laid against them. Against the said decision of the Sessions Judge, the State of Punjab preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 1974 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated April 9, 1978 allowed the State's appeal, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants and convicted the appellants under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC as well as under Section 323, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. On the first count all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for life and on the second count they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each with a further direction that the substantive sentence of imprisonment in respect of all the appellants shall run concurrently.

(3.) We do not propose to set out in extenso the facts of the case nor to discuss in detail the oral and documentary evidence adduced. We say this for the reason that we are fully satisfied that the approach made by the High Court to a consideration of the appeal was wholly vitiated by a manifest illegality inasmuch as the High Court has acted in total disregard of the principles repeatedly laid down by this Court delineating the restricted grounds on which alone interference may be made by a Court of appeal with an order of acquittal passed by a lower Court.