Vs. Krishnan & Ors  INSC 200 (1 April 1998)
Nanavati, V.N. Khare Nanavati , J.
J U D
G E M E N T
two respondents were convicted under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for
causing death of Shanku. The trial court based their conviction upon the
evidence of PWs 1,2,3 and 4. The High court after reappreciating their evidence
set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondents.
High Court in its judgement has observed that upto a certain point, the prosecution
version and the defence version are the same and, therefore, the only question
was whether the deceased and PWs 1 and 3 were the aggressors.
taking into consideration the fact that all the eye witnesses were close
relatives of the deceased and that they had not explained the injury on accused
No.1, the High court came to the conclusion that it was not proved by the
prosecution that the respondents were the aggressors. The High Court further
observed that out of the two versions, the version of the defence was more
probable. Thus accepting the defence versions, the High Court allowed the
appeal and acquitted the respondents.
the evidence, we do not find that the view taken by the High Court is
unreasonable and calls for any interference by this court. However, we would
like to say that the observation made by the High Court that even if the
prosecution evidence was believed, the accused could have been convicted only
under Section 323 IPC and not under Section 302, does not appear to be correct.
to this observation, this appeal is dismissed.