http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BANWAR LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1984

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) DESAI, D.A. THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  336            1985 SCR  (1) 859  1984 SCC  Supl.  538     1984 SCALE  (2)787

ACT:      The Supreme  Court (Enlargement  of Criminal  Appellate Jurisdiction) Act  1970 Section Z (a)-Duty of Supreme Court- Appreciation of  evidence-Evidence  of  Independent  witness corroborated  by   his  identifying   the  accused   in   an identification parade  and recovery  of  the  blood  stained baniyan worn  by the  accused and  the blood  stained knife, value.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  along with  Kanahiya Lal,  Ram Niwas and Badri Lal was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and tried for the offence of murder of one Gyanchand by  the Sessions  Judge, Bhilwara,  Rajasthan. The learned Judge  convicted and sentenced Kanahiya Lal alone to life imprisonment  and acquitted  the rest.  In appeal,  the High Court  of Rajasthan, while confirming the conviction of Kanahiya Lal  as also  the acquittal of two out of the three persons, convicted  and sentenced the appellant also to life imprisonment. Hence  the  appeal  under  the  Supreme  Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^      HELD: Since  the High  Court  set  aside  an  order  of acquittal and  sentenced the  appellant to life imprisonment it is  necessary for  the Supreme  Court to consider whether two views  of  the  evidence  are  reasonably  possible  and whether, the  High Court  was justified in setting aside the order of  acquittal passed  by the  trial Court in favour of the  appellant.  Approaching  the  case  and  assessing  the evidence from  that point  of view,  it is  clear, that  the conviction of  the appellant in view of the evidence of Bodu Lal as  corroborated by  the discovery  of the blood stained baniyan and  knife is unassailable. He is an independent and the most  important witness  in  whose  cycle  rickshaw  the appellant and  the co-accused Kanhiya Lal travelled from the hotel of  Shankar Maharaj  to the scene of offence. Bodu Lal identified the  appellant in  the identification  parade and his evidence  as to  the  colour  of  baniyan  worn  by  the appellant at  the time  of the incident tallied with that of the one  stained with  human blood  and recovered  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

accused. A  knife stained  with human  blood also  recovered from his person confirmed his guilt. [860E-F, 861-B-C] 860

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 224 of 1974.      From  the  Judgment  and  Order  Dated  8.1.73  of  the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 1970.      Naunit Lal & Kailash Vasdev. for the appellant.      B.D. Sharma for the respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD,  C.J.  Four  persons  were  tried  by  the learned Sessions  Judge, Bhilwara,  under section  302  read with section  34  of  the  Penal  Code.  The  learned  Judge acquitted three  out of  the four accused and convicted only one of  them,  namely,  Kanahiya  Lal.  The  High  Court  of Rajasthan confirmed  the conviction of Kanahiya Lal, as also the acquittal  of two  out of  the three  persons  who  were acquitted by  the Sessions  Judge. The  High Court, however, set aside  the acquittal  of the  appellant,  convicted  him under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.      Since  the  High  Court  has  set  aside  an  order  of acquittal  and   has  sentenced   the  appellant   to   life imprisonment, it  is necessary to consider whether two views of the  evidence are  reasonably possible  and whether,  the High Court  was justified  in setting  aside  the  order  of acquittal passed  by  the  trial  Court  in  favour  of  the appellant. Having  approached  the  case  and  assessed  the evidence from that point of view, we are of the opinion that it is  impossible to  agree with the view taken by the trial court. The  High Court  has specifically  dealt with reasons given by  the  trial  court  in  support  of  the  order  of acquittal and  has demonstrated  in a good measure as to why those reasons  cannot be  accepted. We  concur in  the  High Court’s appreciation of evidence.      The  incident   out  of  which  the  prosecution  arose happened at  about 8  p.m. On September 29, 1968 at Bhilwara Rajasthan, leading to the death of one Gyanchand. The motive for the  offence is  alleged to be that Gyanchand’s brother, Nemi Chand,  owed money  to accused  Nos. 3 and 4, Ram Niwas and Badri  Lal. Nemi Chand was evading to pay the debt which created bitterness  between the two brothers on one hand and accused Nos.  3 and  4 on  the  other.  The  latter,  it  is alleged, procured  the help of the appellant and of Kanahiya Lal in doing Gyanchand to death. 861      The prosecution  examined a few witnesses in support of its   case but it is unnecessary to refer to the evidence of each one  of them. The most important witness in the case is Bodu Lal  (P.W. 2).  He is  an independent witness, in whose cycle rickshaw the appellant and the co-accused Kanahiya Lal travelled from  the hotel of Shankar Maharaj to the scene of offence.  Bodu   Lal  identified   the  appellant   in   the identification  parade.   According  to  his  evidence,  the appellant was  wearing a  yellow baniyan  at the time of the incident. When  the appellant was arrested. a yellow baniyan was found on his person and it was stained with human blood. A knife stained with human blood was also recovered from his person.      The High  Court has  convicted the appellant relying on the evidence  of Bodu  Lal, as corroborated by the discovery

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

of the  blood stained baniyan and knife. This evidence seems to us  unassailable. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and confirm the judgment of the High Court. S.R.      Appeal dismissed. 862