IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.843 OF 2006

BADRILAL & ORS.             .... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH   ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1.  Altogether seven persons were put on trial for offences  

under  Sections  148,  323 and 302/149 of  the  Indian Penal  

Code.  The trial court by its judgment and order dated 20th  

January, 1997 acquitted all the accused persons   Aggrieved  

by their acquittal, the State preferred an appeal and the High  

Court by the impugned judgment maintained the acquittal of  

the three accused persons but convicted the appellants under  

Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of  the Indian Penal Code and  

sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous  

imprisonment for one year respectively.

2. Appellants  have  preferred  this  appeal  against  the  

aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence.

3. According to the prosecution, on 29th January, 1994, the  

informant  Madanlal  (P.W.6)  and  his  father  Dhulji,  the  

deceased, were sleeping in a room adjoining their field and his  

nephew P.W.1 Rameshwar was sleeping outside. According to  

the prosecution, at 12:15 in the night the appellants herein  

came on a motor cycle and threatened Rameshwar who was  

sleeping outside. Appellant no.2 also named Rameshwar was  

armed with knife, whereas other appellants were armed with  

lathis. P.W.1 Rameshwar raised an alarm and on hearing the  

same,  the  informant  P.W.6  Madan Lal  and deceased Dhulji  

came out of the room and all the appellants started beating  

them.   Madan  Lal  got  knife  injury  on  the  head  and  lathi  

injuries on hands and legs.  It is the specific allegation of the  

prosecution that appellant No.2 Rameshwar  stabbed Dhulji  

with knife which hit him in the chest and lathi injuries were  

inflicted  on  the  head.   In  the  occurrence,  according  to  the  

prosecution, P.W.1  Rameshwar  got injuries in his left arm  

2

and knee and Dhulji died on account of the injuries sustained  

by him.  

4. After  usual  investigation,  charge-sheet  was  submitted  

and the appellants committed to the Court of Sessions to face  

trial.   Appellants denied to have committed any offence and  

claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution,  in  order  to  bring  home  the  charge,  had  

mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 Rameshwar and  P.W.6  

Madan  Lal  who  claimed  to  be  the  eye  witness  to  the  

occurrence.  Prosecution had also examined P.W.7 Dr. M.K.  

Pancholi, who had conducted the post mortem examination on  

the dead body of the deceased.   He had found four injuries on  

the  person of  the  deceased  and in  his  opinion  the  injuries  

caused on the head and injury No.4 caused on right parietal  

region were by hard and blunt substance, whereas injury nos.  

2  and  3  by  sharp  cutting  weapon.   On  appreciation  of  

evidence, the trial   court held  that the deceased Dhulji died  

homicidal  death.   However,  it  found  that   the  evidence  of  

P.W.6  Madan   Lal   is   not   reliable  on  account   of  

contradictions  in vital particulars, omissions and further his  

3

evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence.  In this  

connection the trial court has observed as follows:

“The  version  of  P.W.1  Rameshwar  is  that  accused Rameshwar stabbed knife in the chest and  stomach  and  Ramesh,  Badri  and  Shankar  beat  Dhulji with stick which was hit in the knees of both  legs.  Whereas PW – 6 Madan states that Ramesh,  Badri  and  Shankar  beat  Dhulji  with  lathis.   He  states  further  that  Ramesh  hit  lathi  in  the  head  which he saw.  But the said statement of  Madan  (PW-6) is corroborated neither by PW-1 Rameshwar  nor First Information Report Ex. P-21 and his police  statement  Ex.  D-1.   He  does  not  mention  any  reason as to why this was not got written by him in  his report and police statement.  PW-6 Madan Lal  states that he is telling this in the Court for the first  time.  Thus, the said statement of Madan Lal which  is not corroborated by any other evidence cannot be  considered  to  be  trust  worthy  beyond  doubt  and  this  probability  cannot  be  denied  that  since  the  report  of  Dr.  M.K.  Pancholi  (PW-7)  is  mentioning  death of  Dhulji  due to the head injury,  therefore,  Madan  Lal  (PW-6)  improving  his  statement  according to the said medical report and is trying to  give his statement according to the medical report.  In  such  situation,  giving  respect  to  the  policy  instances of “Ran Chhod Singh Versus State of M.P.  1983 JLJ 186” and “Ram Narayan and Jagar Singh  & Others versus State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727'.  I arrive at this conclusion that the said statement of  PW -6 Madan Lal cannot be considered trustworthy  beyond  doubt  and  except  Madan  Lal  any  other  witness  does not make such statement that at the  time of the incident, accused Ramesh inflicted some  injury  by  lathi  on the head of  Dhulji  from which  also, this  conclusion comes out that no injury had  come  in  the  head  of  Dhulji  at  the  time  of  the  incident.”

4

6. Identification of the accused persons was also doubted by  

the  trial  court  and  it  found  that  the  claim  made  by  the  

witnesses that they identified the accused persons is not fit to  

be  relied.   In  this  connection,  trial  court  had  observed  as  

follows:

“I  arrive  at  this  conclusion  that  the  prosecution had been unsuccessful in proving that  the night of the incident was bright night or witness  Madan Lal  was having torch at  that  time and he  recognized the accused in torch light.   In such a  situation, this probability cannot be denied that at  12 o'clock night,  this  encounter  might  have  been  made by some other persons  whom witnesses could  not recognize but as there was animosity with the  accused,  therefore,  due  to  suspicion  their  names  might have been got written in the report.”

Non-compliance  of  Section  157  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure was also considered to give benefit of doubt to the  

accused persons.  Relevant portion of the judgment of the trial  

court in this regard reads as follows:

“As far as the question of complying with the  provisions  of  Section  157  of  Criminal  Procedure  Code, in this regard, it is the responsibility of the  prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the copy of  the  First  Information  Report  was  sent  to  the  concerned Magistrate at once.  The purpose of this  provision is only this that later  on any change of  any  nature  could  not  be  done  in  the  First  Information Report.  The first Information Report is  

5

an important document on which foundation stone  of the prosecution story rests.  Mandatory provision  of  Section  157  of  Criminal  Procedure  Code  is  in  respect  of  such  document  which  if  not  complied  with, then the state of suspicion is created.  In this  case,  such  is  not  the  clear  statement  of  PW-9  Chandra Pal  Singh that he sent the copy of  First  Information Report to the concerned Magistrate and  nor has produced any document in connection with  sending  the  copy.   In  such  situation,  only  this  conclusion comes out that provisions of Section 157  Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with.”

Cumulative effect of the aforesaid infirmities and various other  

infirmities pointed out by the trial court led it to conclude that  

the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all  

reasonable doubt, and accordingly, acquitted all the accused  

persons of the charges levelled against them.

7. However,  the  High  Court  in  appeal  maintained  the  

acquittal  of  three  accused  persons  but  convicted  the  

appellants  herein  as  above  and  while  doing  so,  observed  a  

follows:

“Learned  trial  court,  while  discussing  the  prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that it  appears  to  be  doubtful  with  regard  to  the  involvement of the respondents in this incident.  In  the case where the eye witnesses Rameshwar (PW-1)  and Madanlal (PW-6) were also sustained injuries in  the same incident, their presence on the spot could  not be disputed and one Dhulji died due to grievous  

6

injuries  sustained  to  him  by  the  respondents/  accused persons.  In such a situation, the approach  of the learned trial court appears to be erroneous  and  there  cannot  be  two  opinions  that  it  is  the  respondents/accused who caused grievous injuries  in  furtherance  with  the  common intention  to  the  deceased which resulted in his death also caused  simple injuries to witnesses Rameshwar  (PW-1) and  Madanlal (PW.6).”

8. Mr.  Mandeep Singh Vinaik,  learned Counsel  appearing  

on behalf of the appellants submits that the view taken by the  

trial court was one of the possible views and that ought not to  

have been interfered with by the High Court in appeal.  He  

submits that the trial court rightly discarded the evidence of  

P.W.1 Rameshwar and P.W. 6 Madanlal, notwithstanding the  

fact that they were injured witnesses.  Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,  

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, however,  

contends that the High Court while hearing the appeal against  

the  judgment  of  the  acquittal  is  not  precluded  from  

appreciating the evidence and come to its own conclusion. She  

points out that the trial court ought not to have discarded the  

evidence of P.W.1 Rameshwar and P.W.6 Madan Lal, who are  

injured witnesses.

7

9. It is trite that the High Court in an appeal from judgment  

of acquittal does not interfere with the same when it is found  

that the view taken by the lower court is one of the possible  

views.  It is further trite that the High Court in appeal from a  

judgment of acquittal can appraise evidence and come to its  

own conclusion.  However, while coming to its own conclusion,  

it is expected to give due weight to the reasoning given by the  

trial court for acquittal. High Court interferes with the same  

only when it is found that the view taken is not possible to be  

taken in the state of evidence.

10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle when we proceed  

to examine the facts of the present case, we find that the view  

taken by the trial court is a possible view. While granting the  

benefit  of  doubt  to  the  accused  persons,  it  took  into  

consideration  the  contradictions  and  omissions  in  the  

evidence of prosecution witnesses namely P.W. 1 Rameshwar  

and P.W. 6 Madan Lal.    Not only this,  it  found total  non-

compliance  of  the  provisions  of  Section  157 of  the  Code  of  

Criminal  Procedure.   Not  only  that  the  witnesses  claim  of  

identification of the accused persons was also doubted.  If all  

8

these considerations are taken collectively, there is no escape  

from the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is  

one of the possible views.  Injuries to a witness do indicate his  

presence at the time of incident,  but from that it does not flow  

that his evidence is to be accepted automatically. From what  

we have observed above it cannot be said that view taken by  

the trial court is perverse and therefore, we are of the opinion  

that  in  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  High  

Court erred in interfering with the order of acquittal.   

11. In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  the  impugned  

judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside.  Appellants  

are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in  

any other case.

…….…………………....................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ……...........................................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JULY 29, 2010.

9

 [PART-I]   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  843 OF 2006

 BADRILAL & ORS.  ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P.  ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed  

this appeal.  As per the counsel, the appellants are  

stated to be in jail. The appellants shall be set at  

liberty forthwith if not required in connection with  

any  other  case.    

The reasoned order to follow.   

......................J  [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

......................J    [C.K. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JULY 29, 2010.

1