Gopal Krishna Hegde & Ors Vs. The State of Karnataka  INSC 902 (7 August 1996)
Ray, K. Venkataswami Venkataswami J.
these appeals by special leave are preferred against the common judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in criminal Appeal Nos. 791, 792 of 1988 and 129-130 of
1989 dated 20th July,
1990. Briefly stated
the facts as presented by the prosecution are the following :- P.W. 16 Praveen
Chandra was the Divisional Forest officer of Sirsi Division during the relevant period. On
19.4.1988 at about 4.00
p.m. he received a
phone call from an annonymous caller that at night at about 1.00 a.m. (20.4.1988)
there was likelihood of a lorry transporting forest produce from Manjuguni side
and the same person called P.W. 16 half an hour later and informed him that his
officials would do well to be Present near Kambigar cross at about 11.00 p.m.
area referred to by the annonymour caller fell in the jurisdiction of Hulekal Range Forest office.
P.W.16 summoned the deceased Arvind Hegde, the concerned Forest Range Officer
to meet him to take instructions in connection with the above-said phone call.
deceased met P.W.16 at about 6.3O p.m. on 19.4.1988 and he was asked by P.W.16
to keep a watch at the Kambigar Cross to intercept the lorry that was expected
to transport illegally cut forest fuel wood. The deceased was also instructed
to take necessary staff with him for his assistance. The revolver in the
custody of P.W. 16 was also handed over to the deceased. One Mahabaleshwar
Joshi was the borther-in-law of the deceased and was also a Forest contractor. Few days earlier he has
lent his Ambassador Car bearing No. MES 6008 with the deceased. The deceased travelled
in the said car from Sirsi Hulekal Range office and took the assistance of P.Ws
2 and 3 (forest guards) and went to Hegdekatta Forest Office to take the
assistance of P.W. 1 P.W. 1 was requested to secure the presence of P.Ws 4
& 5 (forest guards) for further assistance. P.W.s 2 and 3 were a armed with
a gun each. The deceased further directed the forest guards to place heavy
stones across the road to block free passage to the lorry. At about 3.30 a.m. on 20.4.1988, as expected, the lorry returned from kambigar Forest loaded with illegally cut jungle wood upto the body level.
The lorry had a nameboard "SHRIMAN NARAYANA' and registration No. MYE
5070. In spite of the deceased signalling the lorry to stop, it fled away
avoiding the stones kept on the road. The deceased fired at it with his
revolver, but the bullet could not release. P.W. 2 also fired from his gun, but
it missed the target, namely, the wheel tyre of the vehicle. Thereafter the
deceased and his men followed the lorry in their car and the lorry having gone
near the house of one Neelkantha Hegde stopped in front of it. A-11 was driving
the lorry and there were 4 persons in the lorry. All of them got down and ran
to the house of Neelknatha Hegde.
Hegde, his sons, namely, A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-10 as well as his Uncle's sons,
namely A-2, A-5, A-8 and A-9 were all in the house and they came out of the
house on seeing the lorry. The deceased informed the accused who came out of
the house the A-11 had driven the lorry without stopping the same in spite of
signal was given to stop the same. The deceased called upon them to produce any
permit if they had to cut and carry jungle wood. The accused replied in the
negative. When the deceased informed them that the lorry would be seized, all
the accused protested that they would not allow him to seize the lorry, but
wanted to unload the wood. In spite of the deceased repeatedly informing them
about the various forest offences committed and about the information they had
already got and instructions given by P.W. 16, the accused did not allow the deceased
to discharge his official duty. Realising the situation, the deceased asked
P.W. 5 to inform P.W. 16 on phone about the happenings there. The deceased also
asked P.W. 4 to go Sirsi and bring P.W. 16 to the spot. Sensing the gravity of
the situation, A-4, A-6 and A-7 told the other accused that before the arrival
of P.W. 16, the lorry must be removed from that place for the purpose of
unloading the fuel elsewhere. The deceased was also equally determined to carry
out his job.
deceased and P.W. 1 stood in front of the lorry on its left side and P.W. 2
stood on the right side. While so, A-1 occupied the driver's seat, A-8 and A-10
sat by his side in the cabin. When A-1 started the engine, A-4, A-6 and A-7
dragged the forest guards aside and tore their uniform. A-2 and A-6 snatched
the gun from P.W. 2. A-7 snatched the gun held by P.W. 6. When the accused
attempted to drive the lorry, the deceased who was standing in front of it
climbed over the crashguard in front of the vehicle. A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-9
climbed into the body of the vehicle. A-1 started the vehicle while the
deceased was standing on the crashguard. The guard and the foresters followed
the lorry running and at that time A-11 (who drove the lorry in the first
instance) emerged from his hiding and shouted that as they were always facing
obstructions from the forest guards they should be killed. The lorry thus went
to a distance of about 11/2 further longs on that forest road then came to a
halt near yantalli Cross. When the lorry was at that Cross, the forest guards
heard the voice of the deceased that he was being killed. A-1, A-8 and A-10 got
down from the cabin of the vehicle and A-8 started assaulting the deceased with
a jungle wood. All the accused had surrounded the deceased and when the Guards
reached the spot, they left the place saying that everything was over. The
shirt that the deceased was wearing, one of the shoes, his rovolver with belt,
his waist belt were all lying near him and he was lying with blood injuries and
was found dead. That was about 5.10 a.m.
P.W. 16 along with the Sub Inspector of Police, Sirsi and some police personnel
arrived at the spot, the deceased was shifted in a car to the Government
hospital at Sirsi along with P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6. P.W.1 gave written complaint at
the Sirsi Police Station at 9.30 a. m. A case was registered as crime No.
37188. The Circle Inspector (P.W. 30) on receiving information about the murder
of the deceased and his body being kept at the mortuary of the Government
hospital went there and seeing that some violence was likely to take place,
made arrangements for maintatining peace.
he held inquest over the dead body, examined witnesses and arrested Accused
Nos. 1 to 6. P.W. 30 seized MO-2 a blood-stained firewood pellet stated to have
been used in assaulting the deceased, the leather belt of the deceased, one
shoe, a cap, the revolver of the deceased, a misfired bullet, blandstained
earth, and 2 live cartridges.
left side mudguard of the lorry, some bloodstains were seen and its scrapings
were collected. The lorry was seized under a mahazer. The Ambassador car was
found parked about 300 yards away from the spot where the deceased was
murdered. The switch key was in the dashboard. The two guns that were carried
by the two guards were also found on the back side of the vehicle. Two used
cartridges and one unused cartridge was also lying there. After examining some
more witnesses, P.W. 30 handed over investigation to the Core of Detectives
(C.O.D.). P.W. 31 who took over further investigation from P.W. 30, sent the
blood-stained articles for chemical analysis, sent the fire-arms, cartridges
ballistic experts in the State Scientific Laboratory and on completion of the
investigation, filed the charge- sheet.
the accused stood charged for the offences punishable under section 143, 147,
353 read with 149, 352 read with 149, 506 read with 149, 302 read with 149
& 114 of I.P.C. and section 62(2) read with Section 104 of The Karnataka
substantial defence taken by the accused was that they were falsely implicated
at the instance of P.W.15. the brother -in-law of the deceased who was also a
rival forest contractor like the accused and the deceased might have died on
account of hit by lorry or tuck accidentally They also drew the attention of
the trial court to the discrepancies in oral evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 6 as
to who was alleged to have caused the blew by jungle wood and also the
discrepancy regarding the cause of death as spoken to in oral evidence and as
recorded in p-53, 56 and 57. They also relied on the fact of considerable delay
in lodging the F.I.R. which according to them, gave room to fabricate the
learned Session Judge on the evidence adduced before him, both oral and
documentary, bound A-11 quilty of the forest offence under section 62(2) read
with section 104 of the karnataka Forest Act and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for
6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ in default to undergo 2 months R.I. A-1
to A-10 were found guilty of rioting under Section 147 I.P.C. and were
sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months each. A-1 to A-10 were also found
guilty under section 353 read with section 149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to
R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand each, in default to
undergo R.I. for 3 months. In addition . A-1 to A-10 were also found guilty
under section 332 read with section 149 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to R.I.
for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each, in default to undergo R.I. for
3 months. In addition, A1, A2, A3, A5, A8, A9 and A10 were found quilty under
Section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C and for that they were sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life. substantial sentences of imprisonment were
directed to run concurrently.
accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence preferred tow appeals to the
High Court. The State Government also filed appeals against acquittal of some
accused under section 302 read with section 149 and also another appeals for
enhancement of sentence. The learned counsel appearing for the accused
reiterated the same arguments in the High Court that were advanced before the
learned Sessions Judge. The learned judges of the high court on consideration
of the arguments and after perusing the judgment of the learned Sessions judge
and all connected records partly allowed the appeals filed by the accused
persons by setting aside their conviction and sentence passed for the offence
under section 332 read with section 149 and consequently acquitted them of the
said charge. The learned Judges also set aside the sentence passed against A2,
A3, A5 and A9 under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and acquitted them of
the said charge. so for as A1, A8 and A10 are concerned, their conviction under
section 302 I.P.C. read with section 149 was however confirmed as conviction
under section 302 IPC red with section 34 IPC. here sentence to suffer
imprisonment for life was also confirmed. Apart from this, the other
convictions and sentence imposed under section 353 read with section 149 and
147 were also confirmed. So far as the appeal filed by the State are concerned,
the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed. by
the sessions judgement on certain accused and consequently, dismissed the
under these circumstances the accused have filed these appeal by special leave
against their conviction and sentence and the State has Also preferred appals
for conviction of the acquitted accused and also for the enhancement of sentence.
Natarajan, learned senior counsel elaborately argue the matter before us and
took us through the judgment of the High Court and also through the relevant
documents and depositions. We do not propose to deal with all the points raised
and argued before us . We are inclined to confine to the points that are
crucial and are directly relevant to the facts of this case.
overall perusal and appreciation of the facts, we are satisfied that the
accused were responsible for committing the forest offence and in order to
escape punishment for that offence, they had driven away the lorry loaded with
billets of illegally cut forest fuel trees by using criminal force and
assaulting the concerned forest officials from discharging their duties. Therefore,
we are not interfering with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused
for those offences for which they were charged.
as the conviction and sentence of A, A8 and A10 for the offence under section
302 read with section 34 IPC is concerned the act attributed to them was that
these accused were in the cabin of the lorry, A1 being at the driver's seat and
drove away the lorry even though the deceased prevented them from taking away
the lorry by clinging on to the crash board. The evidence of the prosecution,
namely, PWs 1, 2 and 3 on this aspect was hat they also tried to prevent the
lorry from moving from the premises of NeelKantha Hegde. However, they were
overpowered by the accused by snatching away the guns from them and by pushing
them out from the way of the lorry. Thereafter, according to them, they chased
the lorry about furlong on two when they said to have heard the voice of the
deceased crying that he was being killed. When they actually reached the place,
the deceased was found dead and he lorry was taken away from that place. We
have seen from the evidence as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses that PW1
was having a torch and they were 100 ft away from the lorry and they were able
to see the attack by the accused (A1, A8 and A10 ) on the deceased.
the contention of the learned counsel for the accused was that there is vital
discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 on one hand and PW6 on the other. It
is the definite case of PWs 2 and 3 that it was A8 who got down form the cabin
of the lorry and attacked the deceased with the forest wood which resulted in
the dead of the deceased.
other hand, P.W. 6 gave evidence showing it was A1 who got down from the cabin
with forest log and attacked the deceased which caused the death. the other
accused, according to P.W. 6 were engaged in pulling the uniform, revolver etc.
from the body of the deceased. Though this discrepancy was noticed by the High
Court, according to the learned senior counsel, that was not given due
importance while appreciating the defence case and convicting the accused for
the offence under section 302. He also submitted that the log which was
supposed to have been used to attack the deceased was supposed to have been
used to attack the deceased was market was MO-2. The measurement of that log as
given in the panchanama and as spoken to by PW. 23 who has subscribed as a
witness to the panchanama was 42" in length and 8" in diametre.
According to the learned counsel a single man cannot lift such a big log and with
that attack was alleged by the prosecution witnesses. It is the further
submission of the learned senior counsel that the High Court has totally
misunderstood the arguments advanced. before it regarding the cause for the
death, Namely, the deceased might have been hit by a lorry or a truck. The High
Court presumed that the deceased was run over by a lorry. That was nobody's
case. According to the learned senior counsel, The lorry while trying to turn
from the Tar road to Katcha road there was small culvert and the ground was
covered by pebbles and there was just sufficient gap for the lorry along to go
in that katcha road whole crossing the culvert and to deceased forest officer
who has clinging on the crash board of the lorry might have fallen from the lorry
on the pebbles on a rough surface which might have caused the death and not as
spoken to by the P.Ws. He also suggested that P.Ws 1,2,3 and 6 could not have
seen from a distance of 100 ft. At 3-4.00 A.M. in the forest area the exact cause for the death of the deceased. The
fact that there was a culvert and 8 "Aswathakattas" was spoken to by
PW 23. He also submitted that even before the F.I.R. was registered the cause
for the death of the deceased as given by P.Ws 2 and 3 to the medical officer
as recorded in Ex. P.53, P.56 and P.57 supports the case of the defence that
the cause for the death of the deceased was by accident and not as spoken to by
P.ws. It is the contention of Mr. Natarajan. learned Senior counsel for the
accused that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the evidence of P.W
25 the medical officer and also the statements recorded by him in Ex. P.53,
P.56 and P-57. Mr. Natarajan also contended that the high Court was not at all
justified in convicting the accused for offence under section 302 read with
section 34 IPC while the conviction by the learned Sessions Judge was for
offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPc while the conviction by the
learned Sections Judge was for offence under section 302 read with section 149.
According to the learned counsel, there could not have been a common intention
arrived at in the cabin by A1, A8 and A10 while driving away the lorry and they
wanted to avoid punishment for forest offence committed by them and they never
intended to kill the fores officer in this connection. Lastly, he submitted
that the High Court knowing the weakness in the prosecuting case has confirmed
the conviction and sentence on the basis of passobilities and inferences which
cannot be sustained.
learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgment by referring to
the findings giving by the High Court and he also submitted the those findings
are based on appreciation of facts and they do not call for any interference.
Apart from that he also submitted that the High Court was not justified in
dismissing the state appeals for conviction of the accused who were acquitted
by the Sessions Judge for the offence under section 302 I.P.C and also for the
offence under section 302 I.P.C and also for enhancing the sentence.
have carefully considered the submissions advanced on both sides and also
perused the judgments of the trial court and that of the High Court. We are of
the view that the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court under
section 302 read with Section 34 IPC requires further consideration at out
hands in the light of the well- sellted principle that 'every accused is
entitled to the benefit of any reasonalbe doubt arising out of the facts and
circumstances of the case'. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the
principle of extending the benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused cannot be
redly accepted, But should be carefully applied if certain circumstances exist
and warrant the application of the principle. It is sufffice to refer to the
judgment of this Court in K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 (1) SCC 355. this Court in the
said judgement abserved as follows:
tow resonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible,
one must necessarily conceded the existence of a reasonable doubt. But,
fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle on
accused person to the benefit of doubt arising from the possibility of a
duality of views, The possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly
reasonably preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of
another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any view of
the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the
benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable." The
Court further observed:
reasonable doubt", it has been remarked, "does not mean some light,
airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about
almost anything at some time or other. It dows not mean a doubt begotten by
sympathy out of reluctance to convict: it means a real doubt, begotten by
sympathy out of reluctance to convict: it means a real doubt, a doubt founded
upon reason, As observed by lord Denning in Miller V. Ministry of Pensions
(1947) 2 all ER 372) "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof
beyond a shadow of a doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The
law would fail to project the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities
to defect the course of justice. It the evidence is so strong against a man as
to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with
the sentence 'of course it is possible but not in the least probable' the case
is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but Karan vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC 1567 ), this court observed (at
mere possibilities nor remote possibilities nor mere doubts which are not
reasonable can, without danger to the administration of justice, be the foundation
of the acquittal of an accused person, if there is otherwise fairly credible
the above well-settled principle in mind, we well not examine the case put
forward by the learned counsel for the accused-appeallants. It is the
contention of Mr. N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
accused that the deceased might have died not by manhandling by the accused (A1,A8
and A10) as spoken to by the prosection witness, put on account of a fall from
the crash board from which the was clinging on when the lorry diverting from
the Tar road and entering into the katcha road. It is the further argument of
the learned counsel that this was not properly appreciated by the High Court
and the High Court wrongly proceeded as if the argument was that the deceased
was run oven by the lorry. In this connection, it is relevant to extract a
portion of the evidence of P.W. 23 who has subscribed as a witness to the Panchnama.
deposed as follows:
we want to that place along with PWs. 1 and 6, some forest official and police
officials were present. No forest guards were present at the time. The distance
from Nilkantha Hedge's hose to yentally cross is about tow furlongs and not
four furlongs as suggested. There are "ASWATHAKATTAS" Four numbers on
the eastern side and four numbers on the western side towards the southern side
of Hegdekatta Sirsi
Road. There was a
small "Kornakalu" in the middle of Yentalli cross road running about
17 1/2 feet. The eastern and western sides of Yentalli cross road touches the
stone steps of two "ASWATHAKATTAS".
witness volunteered that the distance of 14 feet. The tyre marks were visible
after about 30 to 40 feet from the starting of Yentalli cross as there was
grass. The places spread all oven the place.
not correct to suggest that there was no marked kutcha road and it is only a
open ground." This evidence is supported by Panchanama which reads as follows
:- "At the time of drawing Panchanama, the eye witnesses recognised all
the article, said aforesaid articles were seized by the C.P.I.
the above said crime.
place is abutting to Hegdekatta Sirsi Tar road, katcha road heading to Rudramule.
It is at distance of 2 furlongs east of the house of the Neelkanta Hegde. This
palace is government forest, and having survey No.423 of shivalli village. Since
there are totally 8 Ashwathakatta in this place. It is called Yentalli Katta. Kachcha
road is in between Ashwath katta and telephone pole No. A-II/19.
between the place where blood is found telephone pole is 10'-5' and it is in
east direction, Kachcha road further heading to south in direction and on the
road the fresh clear make of the tyre of the lorry is found." This is one
aspect of the matter. The other aspect pointed out by the learned counsel for
the accused- appellants was with regard to the nature of external injuries
which could have been caused, according to him, Only by the fall of the victim
from the lorry on a rough surface and not by receiving blow with piece of
external injuries caused were the follwoing:
Two locerated wound over the occipital region measuring 2" x 1/2 bone deep
(2) Contusion over the right cheek 8" x 6".
Contusion of the right upper eye lid was present. Bleeding from both nostrils
and left ear was present.
Multiple constructions and abrasion over the chest wall, anterior abdominal
wall and back were present.
Abrasion over the anterior aspect of the left thigh 12" x 12" and
another abrasion over the upper part of the right thigh measuring 3"x
Abrasion over the right gluteal region and upper posterior aspect of the right
thigh 12" x 10".
of the body, the internal injuries found were the following:-
in the occipital region 6" x 6" was present.
Fracture base of the skull extending through posterior and middle cranial fossa
on both sides.
of arbital roof on the right side. Fracture at the tempora occipital junction
on the left side and tempero frontal region on the right side.
Laceration of right cerebelum.
examination of the thorax there was fracture of the 3rd of 5th rib in the
anterior axillary line on the right side. Fracture of 4th to 8th ribs at their
junction with vertebrae on the left side.
was torn on both side. About 500 CC. of blood was present in the pleural
Laceration of both the lobes of the liver was present. Perinefric haematoma was
present 6 on both the sides of kidney.
to P.W. 25, the Medical Officer, the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage
on account of injuries of the vital organs.
suggestion put by the learned counsel for the accused to the effect that all
those injuries could have been caused as a result of a fall from the medical
officer, did not rule out that possibility. Having regard to the external
injuries as extracted above, the contention of the learned counsel for the
accused-appellants that those injuries could have been caused by the body
coming into contact with some rough surface on account of the rolling of the bedy
by a fall from the lorry cannot be brushed aside.
also noteworthy that the accused in order to take away the lorry to distant
place to dispose of the illegally cut jungle wood diverted the same from Tar
road to Katcha road and the width of the Katcha road was just enough to allow
the lorry to enter in the Katcha road, where there were "Ashwathakattas"
Ashwathakattas" which means that peeple tree surrounded by some small
brick/stone structure further narrowing the width of the road. It is also seen
from the Panchanama that on one side those "Ashwathakattas" were
there and on the apposite side there was a electirc pole.
these things would strengthen the argument of the learned counsel for the
accused that the deceased could have fallen from the lorry while the lorry
turned from Tar road to Katcha road and thereby sustained all the injuries.
coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that
there was abnormal delay in registering the F.I.R. We are of the view that by
itself it may not assume importance, but in the light of other circumstances
this delay may not be easily ignored. The High Court itself found with the
Station House Officer for not registering the F.I.R. immediately when he was at
the scene of incident. The delay in registering the F.I.R assumed inportance in
view of the fact that in the Acident Register, the cause of death was recorded
as accident due to hit by a trunk. This statement was recorded not only in one
register, but in three registers, namely, Exs. P53, P56 and P57. This was the
earliest information given by P.Ws. 2 and 3 However, when they gave oral
evidence, they have spoken differently regarding the cause of death, namely,
manhandling of the deceased by A1, A8, and A10. According to the defence
counsel, the original version was changed to suit the convenience of
prosecution by registering the F.I.R. belatedly. The High Court, however,
brushed aside Ex.P53, P56 and P57 by observing that they cannot be looked into
as substantive evidence even though they are marked on the prosection side and
they are public documents and presumed to be genuine and duly recorded.
another discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused was that
the definite case of PWs.1,2 and 3 was that it was A8 who got down from the
cabin of the lorry and hit the deceased by MO2 and others jointed in tearing
the uniform of the deceased by removing the revolver etc. On the other hand,
P.W. 6 has spoken that it was A-1 who got down form the cabin with M.O.2 and
gave the flow to the deceased and others jointed A1. This discrepancy was
noticed by the High Court. IT is again the contention of the learned counsel
for the accused-appellants that in the forest area at about 3-4 A.M., P.Ws
1,2,3, and 6 have followed the lorry by running behind it and alleged to have
seen the accused beating the deceased from a distance of 100 ft with the help
of a torch light. this according to the learned counsel, is not possible
particularly when the place of accurrence was forest surrounded by trees.
it was contended that having regard to the size of MO2 said to have been used
by the accused attack the deceased, the prosecution case must fail. we have
noticed that the size of MO2 as noted in the Panchanama was 41" in length
and 8" in diametre. In the normal course, it is not possible for a person
to handle that heavy material for attacking anyone, If we take into account all
these factors, we entertain that there exists a reasonable doubt and the
benefit of which must go to the accused. We do not think that there exists a
reasonable doubt and the benefit of which must go to the accused. We do not
think that the doubts created are either fancy or remote possibilities. On the
facts of this case, we are satisfied that evenly balanced tow views are
possible and, therefore, we are inclined to give the benefit of reasonable
doubt the accused and hold that the charge against A1, A8 and A10 under section
302 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
concluding we would like to share the appreciation expressed by the High Court
in the following words:
that process, the efforts of the deceased Range forest Officer Hegdekatta
should deserve appreciation not only in hands of his colleagues or officeal
superiors but also of the Court.
when the lorry started from the precincts of the house of the accused,
disregarding his own safety to personand life the deceased clung to the crashguardin
order to prevent the lorry proceeding further." As regards conviction of
other charges, we do not think there is any case for interference.
result, the conviction and sentence of A1, A8 and A10 under section 302 read
with section 34 IPC is set aside and the conviction and sentence in respect of
other offences is confirmed. I view of the above findings, the appeals
preferred by the State are dismissed.