STATE OF MYSORE Vs. DYAVEGOWDA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They relate to one incident. It is alleged that the respondents delayed one Ningappa on the night of 13-12-1958 to Cholenahalli village and there they murdered and robbed him. The charge of murder was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, Camp Hassan, in Hassan Sessions Case No. 4 of 1959, and the respondents were acquitted as per the judgment dated 15-4-1959. Cr. A. No. 207/59 is directed against the said decision. After the acquittal of the respondents in H. S. C. No. 4/59, the respondents were tried for the offence under section 392 I. P.C. by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore, Camp: Hassan, with the aid of Jury in Hassan Sessions Case No. 5 of 1959. In that case the Jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty' . The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the Jury and acquitted the respondents. In Criminal Appeal No. 318/59, the legality as well as the correctness of the order in H. S. C. No. 5/59 is assailed.

(2.) We shall first take up Cr. A. No. 207/59. (After briefly stating the prosecution case, the judgment proceeded:)

(3.) The evidence against the respondents is entirely circumstantial. Therefore it is necessary to analyse the several circumstances and find out how far each one of the circumstances allied is fully established and whether the proceed circumstances conclusively bring home the offence against the respondents. In doing so, we have to bear in mind the limitations attached to an appeal against acquittal. It is now well settled that in an appeal against an order of acquittal (not against the verdict of a Jury), the power of this Court to review the evidence afresh is an extensive its power in an appeal against a conviction. It is equally well settled that if two responsible views on the evidence adduced are possible, the view that had commended itself to the trial court should been accepted as the trial court had the benefit of seeing the witness in the box; further, the presumption of innocence of the accused gets strengthened by an order of acquittal passed in his favour and hence there must be good reasons for disturbing that finding. But if the trial court has misdirected itself either on questions of law or in appreciating the evidence before it and thus arrived at conclusions which are wholly unreasonable and unsupportable, then it is the duty of this court to interfere with the verdict under appeal. Now we shall proceed to consider the evidence bearing in mind these well-settled principles relating to appeals against acquittals. (His Lordship then discussed the prosecution evidence include g that relating to the recovery of blood strained clothes from the person of R. 1 in the rest of this Para (Para 3) and Paras 4-14 and observed in Para 15). The real question for decision is whether we have any good reasons to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 24, 26 and 30. If their evidence has to be rejected solely on the ground of improbability then the improbability should be lit large on the fact of their evidence. To attempt to isolate a particular fact from the surrounding circumstances and to discuss the logical inference may be useful mental exercise. But it is wholly out of place in any judicial decision. Judge's experience of life is undoubtedly an important factor in evaluating the evidence placed before him. But he must judge the actions and reactions of the accursed and witnesses before him from their standard.