STATE Vs. K P RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Govt. Pleader on merits because the charges in this case are relatively serious and the learned trial Judge has done an elaborate examination of the evidence both oral and documentary and of the law on the point and has finally come to the conclusion that a conviction would not be sustainable. Effectively, a fight had taken place in the slum and the reason for it was because the accused were of the view that deceased Nathan was one of the persons who was instrumental in taking certain steps for removal of the huts in question. It is true, as is evident from the record, that there was a lot of trouble with regard to the incidents of the huts and efforts have been made to remove them and the dispute has also resulted in some litigation. While this would not justify an assault what the learned trial Judge points out is that in this background, incidents of this type were not unusual and that there were several participants in this incident and even as far as the present incident is concerned, when the police reached the scene of offence they only found Nathan lying in a pool of blood. He was in no position to make any statement as he was seriously injured and subsequently died. It is on the basis of further enquiries that the police have pieced together the case and in our consisted view, after a protracted trial which has ended in the year 2003 emanating out of an incident that has taken place in the year 1994, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that a conviction is not warranted. We have done a review of the record for the purpose of deciding as to whether this order has resulted either in a failure of justice or miscarriage of justice and addressed to ourselves the question at the end of this review as to whether the trial Court would have been justified in recording a conviction. On the state of the record, the answer is in the negative and if this is the position then, the admission of the appeal would only be oppressive to the respondent/accused who are slum dwellers and belong to the weaker sections of society. It is the duty of the Court to undertake this exercise and not to merely start a second innings of a difficult litigation of this type because, some arguable case is made out. Having recorded the finding that this Court can never record any conviction, we confirm the order of acquittal and dismiss the appeal on merits. For the reasons set out in I. A. I. delay is condoned, I. A. I. is allowed.