IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 962  OF 2005

STATE OF M.P. ..  APPELLANT

vs.

MUNSHI SINGH & ORS. ..  RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of Madhya  

Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the State.   By the  

said Appeal the State had challenged the acquittal of the  respondents.  Since during  

the pendency of the appeal, accused Sarman Singh, Rameshwar and Shriam had died,  

the High Court had dismissed the appeal  against  them as  having abated and their  

names were deleted from the array of the parties.

As per prosecution version the occurrence leading to the death of Sobran  

(hereinafter referred to as `deceased') was as follows:  

On 31/12/82 deceased Sobran and his nephew Hariom (PW.13) were going  

to fetch water.   Suddenly  Sarman Singh (since dead) armed with 12 bore gun and  

Munshi Singh (R1) armed with Mouzer Rifle fired gun shots on the deceased. Hariom  

(PW.13) ran for safety and saw Rameshwar (since dead) armed with 12 bore gun, Hari  

Singh @ Babu Singh (R2) armed with muzzle loading gun, Shriram (since dead) armed  

with  single  barrel  gun,  Chhote  Singh  (R3)  and  Veerendra Singh  (R6)  armed with  

country made pistols standing near the well of Chamars.  They fired three or four gun  

1

shots on Hariom (PW.13) who was however not injured.  Hariom (PW.13) ran towards  

field  and saw Bhagwati  (R5) and Rukum Singh (R4) standing near telephone pole.  

These respondents followed Hariom (PW.13) for some distance but Hariom (PW.13)  

succeeded in running for safety.  Hariom (PW.13) told about the incident to Ramgopal,  

Bhogiram (PW.6), Bhagat Singh (PW.7) and Jaswant Singh (PW.8).  Hariom (PW.13)  

reported the  matter to  Shiv  Prasad  (PW.2),  Head Constable  who was  posted  as  a  

security guard in the village at the house of Munshi Singh (R1).  Deceased had died on  

the  spot due to gun shot injuries.  Later on a mouser rifle was seized from Munshi  

Singh (R1) vide Ex.P/1.  Two 12 bore empties and three brass empties were handed  

over to Police by Hariom (PW.13) vide Ex.P/6.  Ballistic expert vide Ex.P/20 found that  

empties  seized  were  not  fired  from  the  rifle  seized  from  Munshi  Singh  (R1).  Dr.  

P.C.Mittal (PW.9) found two entry wounds of gun sot in the back of deceased with  

three exit wounds on left side of neck and chest vide Ex.P/10.

After  investigation  was  completed,  charge  sheet  was  filed.   The  accused  

persons  pleaded  not  guilty  in  the  case  and  claimed  that  they  have  been  falsely  

implicated on account of longstanding disputes.  The trial court analysed the evidence,  

particularly of Hari Om (PW.13) Jaldevi (PW.12), mother of the deceased, and Bhagat  

(PW.7).  The trial Court found the evidence of the so-called eye witnesses to be not  

reliable and, accordingly, directed their acquittal.

Before the High Court, the stand of the State was that the evidence of PW 7,  

12 and 13 could not have been discarded.  The High Court analysed the evidence in  

detail and held that the trial Court was justified in discarding the prosecution version  

and, therefore, it also dismissed the appeal.

2

In support  of  the appeal,  learned counsel  for the appellant  reiterated the  

stand taken before the High Court that the evidence of three eye witnesses could not  

have been discarded.  Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of  

the High Court.

The power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal is as  

wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against the conviction and it has full power to  

re-appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are possible,  one  

supporting  the  acquittal  and the  other  indicating  conviction,  then,  the  High  Court  

would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it is of the view  

that  sitting  as  a  trial  Court,  a  different  view  could  have  been  taken.   But  if  the  

judgment of the trial Court is admittedly perverse, legally erroneous and based on a  

wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it cannot but be just and proper for the High  

court to reverse the judgment of acquittal  recorded by the trial Court as otherwise  

there would be gross miscarriage of justice.   

In the instant case, the High Court noticed that the trial Court referred to  

the  various  infirmities  in  the  evidence  of  so-called  eye  witnesses  PW.7,  12  and 13.  

Their presence at the spot as claimed was doubtful.  The ballistic expert's report was  

also contrary to the evidence of PW.7, 12 and 13.   

Above being the position, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of  

the High Court to warrant interference.   The appeal fails and is dismissed.

                         ................. .J.              (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

3

     ...................J.                                         (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 23, 2009.

4