IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1275 OF 2002

Jagdish        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh               ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The sole appellant, along with accused, Dhiran, Ram Swarup, Prakash and

Champa, were tried for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the

Indian  Penal  Code  [for  short,  ‘I.P.C.’],  but  were  acquitted  by  the  Trial  Court.

Against the order of acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal before the

High Court, which upheld the acquittal of other four accused persons, but reversed

the same in relation to the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

We have been taken through the judgments rendered by the Trial Court

and the High Court, apart from the evidence of P.W.1 (Naktu), the informant, who

was chowkidar of the village as well as the evidence of three eye-witnesses, namely,

P.W.2 (Lahori Bai), P.W.3 (Bimla Bai) and P.W. 5 (Grisham Bai).  Undisputedly, the

informant, before going to the Police Station for lodging first information report, met

the aforesaid  witnesses but none  of them disclosed the name

...2/-

- 2 -  

of the accused to him.  As a result of this, the first information report was lodged

against unknown persons.  The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation as to

why the names of accused persons were not disclosed to P.W.1 when he visited the

residence  of  the  deceased.   The  Trial  Court,  after  taking  into  consideration  all

relevant material, refused to place reliance upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses and

held  that  the  prosecution  has  failed  to  prove  its  case  beyond  reasonable  doubt.

Accordingly,  it  acquitted  all  the  accused  including  the  appellant.   The  approach

adopted by  the  Trial  Court  for  recording  the  order  of  acquittal  was  correct  and

findings recorded by it did not suffer from any perversity, yet the High Court upset

the same qua the appellant by placing reliance upon the statements of the so-called

eye-witnesses.  It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court

can not interfere with the same.  As the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial

Court cannot be said to be perversed, the High Court was not justified in interfering

with the same and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.   

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court,

so far the same relates to the appellant, is set aside and the order of acquittal recorded

by the Trial Court is restored.

The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 19, 2009.