Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's conviction, holding that the trial court erred in disbelieving key witnesses and that an appellate court may set aside an acquittal when it is perverse or based on irrelevant evidence.

Summary

The case involves a murder on a bus where the deceased was killed and his son injured. The trial court acquitted all accused, disbelieving the injured witness and other eye‑witnesses, while the High Court convicted nine of the accused and acquitted the rest. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal when two views of the evidence are possible, whether the maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ applies in India, and whether the non‑production of a General Diary or the nature of the telephonic information affects the prosecution case. The Court held that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was flawed, that benefit of doubt to some accused does not automatically extend to the main accused, and that the lack of corroboration does not render a prosecution witness wholly untrustworthy. Consequently, the High Court’s conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of appellate interference in a judgment of acquittal when two views of the evidence are reasonably possible
Whether the legal maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is applicable in Indian criminal law
Whether non‑production of the General Diary or the nature of telephonic information can vitiate the prosecution case under Section 162 CrPC
The credibility of an injured and interested witness and the requirement of corroboration
The adequacy of identification of accused in low‑light conditions on a bus

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 162, s. 378
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murderappeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusevidence appreciationinjured witnessSection 162 CrPCidentification in low lightcommon intention

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1078

A ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS.
v.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2006)

MARCH 5, 2008
B
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ)

Penal Code, 1860:

s. 302 rlw 149 - Two persons assaulted by a number of
C accused in a bus in the night - One of victims died - Acquittal
by trial court - Conviction by High Court of nine accused and
acquittal of others giving them benefit of doubt- HELD: Maxim ·
'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' not applicable in India -
Giving benefit of doubt to some accused itself would not be
D sufficient to extend same benefit to main accused who took
part iri a brutal murder of their arch enemy - Trial court has r--
not believed injured witness at all - He may be an interested ·
witness, but there is no reason as to why he would falsely
implicate the accused, motive of crime being unrebutted -
E Without taking recourse to right methodology of appreciation
of evidence no court should infer that a prosecution witness is
wholly untrustworthy only because his evidence has not been
corroborated - Evidence - Testimony of injured and interested
witness.
F Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 378 - High Court recording conviction in appeal against
acquittal..:.. HELD: Whether a matter deserves interference by
appellate court depends upon fact situation of each case -
G Non-consideration of material facts and consideration of
irrelevant facts would invite interference with judgment of trial
court - On facts, very serious infirmities both in regard to legal
propositions as also appreciation of evidence were noticed in
judgment of trial court - There is no reason to take any , f

H 1078
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1079
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF AP.

exception to finding of conviction· recorded by High Court. A
s. 162 - Telephonic intimation of offence of murder -
Police rushing to scene of occurrence - FIR recorded later -
General Diary not produced in Court - HELD: When an
information is received by an officer-in-charge of a police
station, he is expected to reach place of occurrence as early B
as possible - On facts, it cannot be said that information
received by police on telephone was of such a nature and
contained such details which would amount to an FIR so as to
attract provisions of s. 162 - Non-production of General Diary
in such a case cannot be a ground for disbelieving entire C
prosecution case.

Criminal Trial:
Conduct of accused - Accused persons absconding for
long time - On their arrest some of them making confessions D
leading to recoveries and also producing their clothes
containing blood stains - Effect of - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s.27.
Legal Maxim - 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' - HELD: E
Not applicable in India.
The appellants alongwith others were prosecuted for
causing injuries to PW-1 and death of his father. The
prosecution case was that due to a land dispute, a few
criminal cases, Gram Panchayat elections and collection F
of money for fire victims, there was enmity between the
complainant side and the accused persons. On
23.06.1998, PWs 1 and 2, their father and other family
members went to the town to attend a court case. The
accused were also present in the court. While other family G
members returned to the village after attending the court,
PW-1 and his father stayed back. They boarded a bus at
9.30 p.m. for their village. When the bus reached a road
junction at about 10.30 p.m., A-1 exhorted other accused
sitting in the bus to kill the father of PW-1. All the accused- H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A appellants and A-10 inflicted several injuries to PW-1 and
his father. The latter died in the bus. PWs 3 and 4, the
conductor and the driver, respectively, of the bus and
other passengers fled away. PW-1 cried for help,
whereupon PWs 3 and 4 returned back and took the bus
B to the village of PW-1, which was dest!nation of the bus.
PW-3 informed the Depot Manager. The officers of the
Transport Department reached the village at 1 a.m. by
another bus. PW-1 was taken to the hospital in the town
in the said bus leaving the dead body of his father in the
C village. The trial court did not rely upon the testimony of
eye-witnesses and acquitted all the accused of the
charges. It also held that the First Information Report was
hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. On appeal by the State, the High
Court convicted the nine appellants as also A-10, who later
died, of the charge of murder of the deceased and
0
acquitted the remaining accused of all the charges.
In the instant appeal it was contended for the
appellants that the High Court failed to take into
consideration the parameters of appeal against acquittal
E and as in the instant case two views were reasonably
possible, the Judgment of the High Court was
unsustainable in law. It was further submitted that the High
Court wrongly relied upon the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses whose testimonies were found to be doubtful
F by the trial court.
Dismissing the appeal the Court
HELD: 1.1 There cannot be any dispute in regard to
the legal proposition that an appellate court while
G entertaining an appeal from a judgment of acquittal would
not ordinarily interfere therewith, if two views are possible.
Which matter deserves interference at the hands of the
appellate court would depend upon the fact situation of
each case. Legal proposition must be applied having
H regard to the fact of each case. In the instant case, very
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1081
PROSECUTOR, H..C. OF A.P.

serious infirmities both in regard to the legal propositions A
as also appreciation of evidence have been noticed in the
judgment of the trial court. Non-consideration of material
facts and consideration of irrelevant facts would be
factors which would invite an interference with the
judgment of acquittal. [para 42] [1104-H; 1105-A-B] B
Mahadeo Laxman Sarane & Anr v. State of Maharashtra
2007 (7)SCALE 137; State of Madhya Pradesh 2007 (4)
SCALE 181 - relied on.
2.1 A court in the process of appreciation of evidence C
may rely on a statement of a witness or may not. It may
even accept the evidence of a witness in part. But without
taking recourse to the right methodology of appreciation
of evidence, no court of law should jump to the conclusion
that a prosecution witness is wholly untrustworthy only
because his evidence has not been corroborated by other D
witnesses. The trial Judge found that both ocular as also
circumstantial evidence did not corroborate the testimony
of PW-1. No reason has been stated. To what extent, the
medical evidence is in variance with the ocular evidence
has also not been discussed. In the instant case, certain E
basic facts are not disputed: the deceased died in the bus
at about 10.30 p.m. on 23.06.1998 while traveling to his
village from the town; PW-1 also sustained injuries in the
said incident; the victims were taken to their house in the
same bus; PW-1 informed about the incident to PW-2, F
another son of the deceased; the conductor of the bus
·sent information to the Depot Manager of the State Road
Transport Corporation; the officers of the Corporation
reached the place on another bus at 1 a.m., wherein PW-
1 was shifted to the hospital in the town; on receiving the G
information, police also reached there. [para 9-10, 21
and 30-31] [1100-B, C; 1091-F-H; 1092-B, E; 1096-C-D]
2.2 As regards the trial court doubting the presence
of witnesses, it is to be noted that accused No. 1 was a
Sarpanch of the village. Accused No. 2 is a Fair Price Shop H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A dealer. Accused No. 3 was also admittedly a well-known
person. It is also not denied and disputed that other
accused were also related to him. In view of the fact that
such an incident had taken place, indisputably it would
immediatoly be known to the villagers. Those who hold
B some respectable position in the village and particularly
those who are concerned with the administration of
Panchayat were expected to be present. [para 13]
[1093-E-G]
2.3 The Sessions Judge, relied upon the evidence of
c PW-3 the conductor, to discredit the evidence of PWs 6
and 7 inter alia on the premise that they are interested
witnesses. Statements of PWs 3 and 4, the conductor and
driver respectively, cannot be taken to be sacrosanct for
the purpose of disbelieving other witnesses. The
D statement of PW-3 evidently was recorded on the next day
after he reached the Depot at about 3 p.m. Even then he
did not say that one of the passengers had died. No undue
importance can be given to a sentence made therein so
as to lead a conclusion that the entire prosecution case
E is vitiated in law. There were some independent
witnesses. They, for obvious reasons, came forward to
depose in favour of the prosecution. The High Court has
rightly noticed that PWs 3 and 4 tried to save their own

F
skin. They never informed about the particulars of the
incident. They only stated that there had been commotion.
._ .
They did not disclose any details about the incident. On
the aforementioned premise the High Court observed that
they might have been desisted from giving the particulars
expecting that there may be a trouble to them if the names
of the accused are disclosed. Their behaviour, keeping in
G
view the present societal condition, cannot be said to be
wholly unnatural. [para 20, 27] [1096-A, B; 1097-E, F, G]
<
2.4 PW-2, the other son of the deceased, in his ~

evidence categorically stated that PWs 6 and 7 came to
H his house at about 11 O'Clock in the night and informed
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1083
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

him about the incident and some time thereafter the dead A
body of the deceased as also PW-1 arrived in the bus in
question. He not only found the dead body of his father,
but also found PW-1 lying in the bus in between two rows
of seats with bleeding injuries. PW-1 was taken to the
hospital in the bus of the Transport Department leaving B
the dead body in the house. There is no tinge of falsehood
in his statement. The sequence of events also
corroborates the prosecution case in material particulars.
The injuries on the person of PW-1 might have been found
to be simple. But, he with the dead body of his father came c
to the house. The mental condition of PWs 1 and 2 can be
well imagined. When the Depot Manager and the Deputy
Superintendent of Police arrived in a bus at about 1 a.m.,
they must have made preliminary inquiries. They were
taken by another bus which was driven by PW-12. He was
0
also a witness to the spot inspection. [para 25 and 29]
[1098-G, H; 1099-A-D; 1097-B, C]
2.5 It is significant to note that PW-1, the injured
witness, was not believed at all by the trial court. He may
be an interested witness. But then, there was no reason E
as to why he would falsely implicate the appellants. Both
he and PW-2 disclose the motive on the part of the
accused to commit the offence. It is too much to expect
of a person to notice as to which weapon would be carried
by which accused. No accused would openly display F
them. The observations of the Sessions Judge, therefore,
that the accused were not seen prior to the occurrence
anywhere in the town or the bus stand till they were
alleged to have been seen in the bus, are perverse. It
cannot be a ground to discredit the evidence of otherwise G
truthful witness. The trial Judge accepted in one part of
the judgment that an injured witness should be given
credit but in the next sentence he stated that evidence of
PW-1 did not inspire confidence. [para 29] [1099-D, E, F, G]
2.6 A sweeping statement has been made by the H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A Sessions Judge that presence of prosecution witnesses
in the bus is highly doubtful. It was not to be readily
inferred. So far as sufficiency of the light for the witnesses
to identify the accused is concerned, suffice it to say that
they belonged to the same village. They have been fighting
B litigations for years. It is too much to say that even in that
situation the identity of the accused persons would not
be known to the prosecution witnesses. All the
passengers were sitting in their respective seats for a long
time. They boarded the bus at the same place. Their
c destinations were same. The High Court has rightly
noticed that as the deceased and the accused persons
were sitting just behind the seat of the conductor where
a light was on, it was possible for the prosecution
witnesses to identify the accused persons committing the
offence. [para 34-35] [1101-B, H; 1102-A, 8, C]
0
3.1 An information received in regard to commission
of a cognizable offence is not required to be preceded by
a First Information Report. Duty of the State to protect the
life of an injured as also an endeavour on the part of the
E responsible police officer to reach the place of occurrence
in a situation of this nature are significant. In the
circumstances, it cannot be said that the information
received by the investigating officer on the telephone was
of such a nature and contained such details which would
F amount to a First Information Report so as to attract
the provisions of Section 162 of the Code. [para 10-11]
[1092-C, D, F, G]
3.2 In the First Information Report which was
recorded at about 3 O'Clock in the night, all the accused
G persons were named and overt acts on their part were
also stated at some length. Each and every detail of the
incident was not necessary to be stated. While
considering the effect of some omissions in the First
Information Report on the part of the informant, a court
H cannot fail to take into consideration the probable physical
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1085
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

and mental condition of the first informant. Once, however, A
a First Information Report is found to be truthful, only
because names of some accused persons have been
mentioned, against whom the prosecution was not able
to establish its case, the entire prosecution case would
not be thrown away. If, furthermore, the purported entry B
in the general diary, which had not been produced, is not
treated to be a First Information Report, only because
some e·nquiries have been made, the same by itself
would not vitiate the entire trial. [para 12-13] [1092-G, H;
1093-A, B, C, D] c
3.3 The Mediator's report, inquest report and ·the
observation report all are dated 24.06.1998. The plea that
the investigating officer recorded the statements of the
witnesses before lodging of the FIR is not borne out from
~
the records except from an endorsement made in the sheet D
meant for noting the details of the fare received by the
conductor. In his evidence he did not say when the said
endorsement was made. He did not say that investigating
officer came to the village and took his statement.
According to him, one DSP came and recorded the said E
statement. The trial Judge committed a serious error in
opining that investigation had already started before
the lodging of the First Information Report. [para 18-19]
...... [1095-B, C, G, H; 1096-A]
4. Although not argued, but it can be taken note of F
that according to PW-1, he was assaulted and dragged
by accused Nos. 11 to 24. They have been acquitted. That
may lead the Court to the conclusion that one part of the
story implicating the appellants in the matter of assault
on him is not exceptionable but then the accused formed G
a common intention/ common object at the spot. Such a
large number of injuries both on the deceased as also
..,. ~~
PW-1 were not possible to be caused only by a handful of
persons. It must have taken place within a few minutes.
The entire incident was described by PWs 3 and 4 only. It H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A was only when all the passengers fled away, they also
fled away. They even did not notice the dead body or PW-
1 in an injured condition. Furthermore, it is a well-settled
principle of law that the maxim 'fa/sus in uno, fa/sus in
omnibus' is not applicable in India. If the High court has
B given benefit of doubt to accused nos. 11 to 24, the same
by itself may not be sufficient to extend the same benefit
to the main accused who took part in a brutal murder of
their arch enemy. There is no reason to take any
exception to the said findings of the High Court.
[para 40-41] [1104-C, D, E, F, G]
c
5. The absence of the accused and the fact that they
were absconding for a long time indicate their conduct.
On their arrest some of them made confessions leading
to recovery of facts which are admissible under Section
D 27 of the Evidence Act. Some of them also produced blood
stained clothes which had been put on by them. There is t-

not much discussion on the part of the trial Judge in his
judgment to discredit the arrest of the accused persons
and seizure of material objects. Why such evidence was
termed arbitrary is beyond any comprehension. [para 15
E
and 35] [1094-A-C; 1101-G]
Dharmendrasinh Alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of
Gujarat (2002) 4 sec 679 - relied on.
6. Non-production of the general diary by itself
F cannot be a ground for disbelieving the entire prosecution ----
case particularly when, apart from a solitary statement.
made by PW-3 in his note, no other evidence has been
brought on record to show that statement of any witness
had been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. [para 36]
G [1102-C-D]
Dharmendrasinh Alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of
Gujarat (2002) 4 SCC 679 - relied on. < ..

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 917 of 2006.
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1087
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.S. SINHA, J.]

From the Judgment dated 6.7.2006 of the High Court of A
t-. Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Crl. A. No. 2600/
2004.
M.N. Rao, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh, Y. Vismai and
B.V. Niren for the Appellants.
B
Anoop G. Choudhari, June Choudhari and Devendra
Kumar Singh (for D. Bharathi Reddy) for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Appellants, nine in number, are before c
us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order
dated 6.07.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2600 of 2004,
dismissing an appeal from a judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 9.11.2001 passed by VII Additional Sessions
0
-, Judge in Sessions Case No. 150of1999 holding the appellants
guilty of commission of murder of one Annamreddi Tatayya Naidu
(deceased) and causing injuries to PW-1 Annamreddy
Sreenivasa Rao, the son of the deceased.
2. Enmity between the parties stands admitted. All the E
accused, the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are
residents of a village commonly known as K.O. Mallavaram.

The deceased, his two sons PWs 1 and 2 and PWs 5 to 7
were accused in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1998. A dispute
between the two groups over some land came upto this Court. F
There were political differences also. Accused No. 1 allegedly
supported Accused No. 3 in the Gram Panchayat elections
wherein the deceased lost. Another incident took place in
relation thereto. A case was filed against the deceased and
others. It ended in acquittal. There was an incident of fire in the G
village. Some of the accused persons allegedly collected a huge
amount promising the victims that they would construct houses
' I- for those whose houses stood gutted therein but the said
promises were not kept.
H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.

A 3. PWs 1 and 2 as also the deceased and several other
family members went at Tuni to attend the court in which the "'
case against the deceased and others was pending. Accused
persons were also present in the court. The distance between
Tuni and the village is said to be about 20 kms.
B Whereas others returned, the deceased and his son PW-
1 stayed back. They came to the bus complex of Tuni at about ~
9.30 p.m. on 23.06.1998. They boarded the bus for going to
their village. PW-5 also boarded the same bus. PWs 6 and 7
are said to have boarded the same bus from a bus stop known
C as Tandava Centre. Admittedly PW-3 Namala Chandra Rao and
PW-4 Yandamuru Prasada Rao were the conductor and driver
of the said bus.
While the bus reached Rapaka road junction at about 10.30
p.m .. some passengers got down from the bus. When it started
0
again, Accused No. 1 exhorted others to kill the deceased. t-
Appellants herein as also Accused No. 10 (since deceased)
inflicted a large number of injuries upon him. His body was
dragged near the door of the bus. PW-1 was also assaulted.
He was dragged by Accused Nos. 11 to 18 upto the door of the
E bus. The driver and the conductor as also other passengers
fled away. Accused also thereafter left the place of incident. PW-
1 cried for help. Hearing his cry, PWs 3 and 4 came back to the
bus and on a request made by him, the bus was brought to the
house of the deceased. ~ .:::
F
4. Before the learned Trial Judge a large number of
witnesses were examined. Eye witnesses to the incident,
however, were PWs 1, 5, 6 and 7. Their testimonies were not
relied upon by the learned Trial Judge.
G Placing reliance on the testimonies of PW-3 that no
passenger boarded the bus from Tandava Centre, the
statements of PWs 6 and 7 were disbelieved. As the learned
Trial Judge disbelieved the testimonies of PWs 6 and 7 that
they had boarded the bus from the said stop, the deposition of
H PW-5 was also not relied upon. Their testimonies were
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1089
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

furthermore disbelieved on the premise that they did not A
,._ satisfactorily explain as to why they had visited village Tuni on
the fateful day. Comments were also made by the learned Trial
Judge that no documentary evidence was produced before the
Court to establish their presence particularly in view of the
evidence of PW-4. The learned Trial Judge also placed B
importance on the dispute between the parties to arrive at a
conclusion that they were interested witnesses.
5. The learned Sessions Judge also laid emphasis on the
fact that immediately after the occurrence the officer incharge
of the police station as alsq the officers of the Road Transport C
Corporation were informed, they came in a bus tQ the village at
about 1 a.m. and examined the witnesses. The deceased and
PW-1 were shifted to the hospital at Tuni. But the general diary
on the basis whereof the said information was said to have been
received by the investigating officer having not been produced, D
the First Information Report was held to be hit by Section 162 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code).
It was furthermore opined that as the lights of bus were
switched off, it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses
and in particular PWs 5 to 7 to identify all the accused. It was E
also opined that the weapons which were purported to have
been recovered at the instance of the accused being M.O. Nos.
1 to 7 being not uniform in. size and shape, their recovery at the
"' -' instance of the accused could not be relied upon. Details of the
said weapons having not been furnished by the said eye- F
witnesses, an adverse inference in that behalf was also raised.
So far as the deposition of PW-1 who was an injured
witness is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved
him inter alia holding:
G
"... The accused all or any one of them were not seen just
prior to the time of occµrrence anywhere in Tuni Town or
• ;-- in the Bus stand till they were alleged to have been seen
in the bus ... "
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A 6. On the aforementioned findings, a judgment of acquittal
was recorded. The State preferred an appeal thereagainst which "'
has been allowed in part by a Division Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court holding the appellants as also Accused
No. 10 guilty of commission of murder of the deceased and
B acquitting Accused Nos. 11 to 24 of all charges.
7. Mr. M.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on '<
behalf of the appellants, apart from reiterating the grounds which
found favour with the learned Sessions Judge in pronouncing
the judgment of acquittal, submitted:
c
(i} The High Court misdirected itself insofar as it failed
to take into consideration that while entertaining an
appeal against a judgment of acquittal the parameters
therefor are different from one arising out of a
judgment of conviction and as in this case two views
D
are reasonably possible, the impugned judgment is t-
unsustainable in law.
(ii) Independent witnesses who were cited in the
chargesheet being CWs - 11 and 12 having not been
E examined as regards the veracity of the prosecution
case, a doubt about the prosecution version should
have been raised by the High Court.
(iii) Statements of PWs 5 to 7 having been fou11d to be
doubtful by the learned Trial Judge, the High Court -1- .,
F should not have relied upon them.
(iv) Reliance placed by the High Court on the statements
of PW-1 is misplaced.
8. Mr. Anoop G. Choudhari, learned Senior Counsel
G appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted:

(i) The learned Trial Judge wrongly discarded the
evidence of PWs 6 and 7 purporting to rely upon the
evidence of PW-4 who had not made any statement
in his deposition that they did not board the bus at
"' .
H
AN IMl REDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1091
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Tandava Centre and as such the same is wholly A
f- perverse.
(ii) PW-5 who admittedly boarded the bus at Tuni itself
in any event could not have been disbelieved only
because PWs 6 and 7 were disbelieved.
B
(iii) None of the prosecution witnesses having been put
any question in regard to their purpose of the visit,
the learned Sessions Judge misdirected itself in
disbelieving their evidence on the ground that they
failed to prove their presence and I or purpose of c
their visit to Tuni.
(iv) There was no reason to disbelieve PW-1 who was
an injured witness.
(v) The question as to whether the lights were switched
D
off or not was wholly immaterial as not only all the
accused were known to the prosecution witnesses,
but also in view of the admitted fact that the light near
the conductor seat was on and the accused were
sitting behind the deceased and PW-1.
E
(vi) Testimony of PW-3, who for reasons best known to
him, having resiled from his earlier statement, could
not have been preferred to that of PWs 5 to 7 as the
evidence of all the three prosecution witnesses are
... ~
consistent. F
9. Certain basic facts are not denied or disputed. The
deceased died in the bus at about 10.30 p.m. on 23.06.1998
while traveling to his village home from Tuni. PW-1 also
sustained injuries in the said incident. Immediately after the
incident, hearing cries from passengers, the driver of the bus G
stopped the bus. Not only the accused persons fled away, all
others also did including PWs 3 and 4. They came back after a
~ 1.- short while hearing the cries of PW-1. They acceded to his
request to take the bus to his house. From the records, it
appears that the distance between the place where the accident H
,•,
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.

A took place and the village in question was not much. In any event,
the destination of the bus was the said village and they were "'
bound to take the bus thereat. PW-1 informed about the incident
to PW-2, another son of the deceased.
10. The dead body of the deceased was brought down
B from the bus and taken to the house. The conductor of the bus
sent an information to the Depot Manager of the State Road '
Transport Corporation at Tuni. The investigating officer was also
informed. A report to that effect might have been noted in the
general diary but the same could not have been treated to be
C an FIR. When an information is received by an officer incharge
of a police station, he in terms of the provisions of the Code
was expected to reach the place of occurrence as early as
possible. It was not necessary for him to take that step only on
the basis of a First Information Report. An information received
D in regard to commission of a cognizable offence is not required ~
to be preceded by a First Information Report. Duty of the State
to protect the life of an injured as also an endeavour on the part
of the responsible police officer to reach the place of occurrence
in a situation of this nature is his implicit duty and responsibility.
E If some incident had taken place in a bus, the officers of the
Road Transport Corporation also could not ignore the same.
They reached the place of occurrence in another bus at about 1
a.m. The deceased and the injured were, only then, shifted to
the Tuni hospital.
.. <
F 11. A First Information Report was recorded at about 3
O'Clock in the night. In the aforementioned situation, it cannot
be said that the information received by the investigating officer
on the telephone was of such a nature and contained such details
which would amount to a First Information Report so as to attract
G the provisions of Section 162 of the Code.
12. In the First Information Report all the accused persons
were named and overt acts on their part were also stated at ~ ,
some length. Each and every detail of the incident was not
necessary to be stated. A First Information Report is not meant
H
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1093
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

to be encyclopedic. While considering the effect of some A
IL omissions in the First Information Report on the part of the
informant, a court cannot fail to take into consideration the
probable physical and mental condition of the first informant.
One of the important factors which may weigh with the court is
as to whether there was a possibility of false implication of the B
~ appellants. Only with a view to test the veracity of the correctness
of the contents of the report, the court applies certain well-known
principles of caution.

13. Once, however, a First Information Report is found to
be truthful, only because names of some accused persons have C
been mentioned, against whom the prosecution was not able
to establish its case, the entire prosecution case would not be
thrown away only on the basis thereof. If furthermore the
purported entry in the general diary, which had not been
produced, is not treated to be a First Information Report, only D
because some enquiries have been made, the same by itself
would not vitiate the entire trial. Enquiries are required to be
made for several reasons; one of them is to ascertain the truth
or otherwise of the incident and the second to apprehend the
accused persons. Arrest of accused persons, as expeditiously E
as possible, leads to a better investigation. Accused No. 1 was
a Sarpanch of the village. Accused No. 2 is a Fair Price Shop
dealer. Accused No. 3 was also admittedly a well-known person.
It is also not denied and disputed that other accused were also
related to him.
F
In view of the fact that such an incident had taken place,
indisputably it would immediately be known to the villagers.
Those who hold some respectable position in the village and
particularly those who are concerned with the administration of
Panchayat were expected to be present. G
14. PW-17 P. Ramchandra Rao was the investigating
officer at the first instance. PW-18 S. Surya Rao investigated
•
the case after PW-17 was transferred. From their testimonies it
appears that Accused Nos. 4, 7, 9, 15, 21 and 23 were arrested
H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A on 7.07.1998 in the morning from near about a place known as
Narappa Tank situated near Tuni. Accused No. 12 was arrested
on 14.07.1998 and Accused Nos. 14, 16, 18 and 20 were also
arrested on the same day. An injury on the finger of Accused
No. 5 was also noticed. He was sent to the government hospital
B for treatment. Accused Nos. 6, 8, 11, 10 and 24 were arrested
in the house of Accused No. 11 on 16.07.1998 in the morning
hours. They made confessions leading to recovery of facts which
are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Some of them, viz.,Accused Nos. 6, 8, 10 and 24 also produced
c blood stained clothes which had been put on by them.

15. We have taken note of the absence of the accused
and that they were absconding for a long time only to highlight
the conduct on their part and that had they been really innocent
and falsely implicated, their presence would have been noticed
D in the village on the same night and in fact they could have been
witnesses to inquest etc.

16. Conduct of the accused vis-a-vis the statement of an
eye-witness has been considered by this Court in
Dharmendrasinh Alias Mansing Ratansinh v. State of Gujarat
E [(2002) 4 SCC 679] in the following terms:
"16. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that
the complainant had actually not witnessed the occurrence
also has no basis. She has made the statement to th9)t
•- <
F effect and nothing could be elicited in her cross-
examination by reason of which any doubt could arise
about the veracity of her statement. On return from the
dairy, she found her husband assaulting the deceased
and on her alarm raised, he slipped away from the other
door. It is also strange that after the incident the appellant
G
was not available for more than 15 days until he was
arrested by the police. In the normal course, on the murder
of his two sons, he should have been moving around the
scene and to have lodged the report against the real
assailants or in case the real assailants were not known,
H
AN IMl REDDY VEN KATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1095
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

he could have lodged the report without naming any A
accused therein ... "
17. Statements under Section 161 of the Code were
recorded by PW-17 P. Ramchandra Rao. Accused Nos. 19 and
22 surrendered before PW-18 S. Surya Rao on 21.07 .1998
and Accused Nos. 13 and 17 surrendered before him at 10 B
l"
a.m. on 6.08.1998.

18. The Mediator's report, inquest report and the
observation report all are dated 24.06.1998. The submission
that the investigating officer recorded the statements of the c
witnesses are not borne out from the records except from an
endorsement made in the sheet meant for noting the details of
the fare received by the conductor which is to the following effect:
'To
~· The D.M. D
" Sir,
07.30 KM Service, the bus started at 21.45 hours from
Tuni and it reached Repaka Centre, some passengers
poked among themselves in the bus. In that anxiety, the
E
remaining passengers requested us to stop the bus, got
down and ran away. We were also got down from the bus
with fear. After some time when we have seen in the bus
two passengers received serious injuries with knives. One
.., ;. of them requested us to take them to their house for first
aid. We have informed the Depot Manager (OM) and he F
brought one bus to the village. C1, DSP came and
recorded the statements. In the afternoon at 15.00 we
have reached the depot. Hence we are informing you."
The learned Trial Judge, in our opinion, committed a
G
serious error in opining that investigation had already started
before the lodging of the First Information Report.
• .'- 19. PW-3 in his evidence did not say when the said
endorsement was made. He did not say that investigating officer
came to the village and took his statement. According to him, H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A one DSP came and recorded the said statement.
20. Statements of PWs 3 and 4 cannot be taken to be
sacrosanct for the purpose of disbelieving other witnesses. The
statements of PW-3 evidently were recorded on the next day
after he reached the depot at about 3 p.m. Even then he did not
8 say that one of the passengers had died. No undue importance
can be given to a sentence made therein so as to lead a
conclusion that the entire prosecution case is vitiated in law.
21. The distance between Tuni, where the hospital and
c the police station are situate, and the village has been noticed
by us. It is about 20 kms. The distance between the village and
the place of occurrence is about 2 kms. The First Information
Report was lodged at about 3 a.m. on the same night. Inquest
started at 7 a.rri. next day. It took about three hours. Observation
report was dr~fted at about 6 a.m. The Mediator's Report was
0
drawn up immediately thereafter.
22. Submission of Mr. Rao that the Village Administrative
Officer was not informed by PW-1 loses all significance as he
is a party to the aforementioned reports. The place of occurrence
E was an isolated place. There was no house or shed. There was
a land bearing 'Gingelly Crop'. There were bushes on both sides
of the road.
23. Post mortem was conducteq by PW-11 Dr.B.V.S.
Chalapati Rao. It commenced at about 2 p.m. As many as 30 J.. <

F injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Only Injury
Nos. 1 to 3 were possible to have been caused by a stick. Apart
from the said question, no other question worth any significance
has been put to the said witness (PW-11) on behalf of the
accused. It is significant to note that according to the accused
G themselves some of the weapons (MOs 1 to 7) which had been
shown to him had one side sharp and one side blunt edges.
24. PW-10 Dr. K. Indira Surya Kumari had examined PW-
1 and found a large number of incised injuries but also found
,. .
H seven lacerated wou[ldS on his person. She stated:
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1097
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

''The injuries 2, 3, 5 and 9 are caused by a sharp object A
t and the injuries 1,6,7, 10 and 11 are caused by blunt object
about 4 to 8 hours prior to the examination."
In cross-examination, according to her, she was informed
about the nature of weapons causing injuries to PW-1.
B
25. The injuries on the person of PW-1 might have been
found to be simple. But, he with the dead body of his father
came to the house. The mental condition of PWs 1 and 2 can
be well imagined. When the Depot Manager and the Deputy
Superintendent of Police arrived in a bus at about 1 a.m., as c
noticed hereinbefore, they must have made preliminary inquiries.
They were taken by another bus which was driven by PW-12
Bafti. He was also a witness to the spot inspection.

26. Village Administrative Officer of K.O. Mallavaram was

(~ a witness to the inquest as also the recovery. Recovery of a
large number of weapons as also blood stained clothes is also
D

not in dispute. PW-14 D. Phani Babu is the Village
Administrative Officer of Nandivompu Village. He is a witness
to the arrest of some of the accused.
E
27. The learned Sessions Judge, as noticed hereinbefore,
relied upon the evidence of PW-3 (wrongly stated as PW-4) to
discredit the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 inter alia on the premise
that they are interested witnesses. There were some
~ ,. independent witnesses. They, for obvious reasons, came
forward to depose in favour of the prosecution. The High Court F
has rightly noticed that PWs 3 and 4 tried to save their own
skin. They never informed about the particulars of the incident.
They only stated that there had been commotion. They did not
disclose any details about the incident. On the aforementioned
premise the High Court had observed that they might have been G
desisted from giving the particulars expecting that there may
be a trouble to them if the names of the accused are disclosed.
,.. ~-
Their behaviour, keeping in view the present societal condition,
cannot be said to be wholly unnatural. They purported to have
made a statement that Accused No. 1 did not board the bus. H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A Although they knew who the accused were but never made any -'\-
statement before the police that he did not board the bus. It was
accepted that there were about 48 passengers in the bus and
only one passenger got down at the 4th stage. They did not
dispute that Tandava Centre was a bus stop. PW-3 could have
s proved from the chart that nobody boarded the bus at that stage.
We find that except payment of fare for two stages, fare have
been paid for all the stages. He could have correlated the number
of stages which would have been attracted if PWs 6 and 7 were
to board the bus at Tandava Centre.

C 28. PWs 6 and 7 could not have been disbelieved only on
that account. The learned Sessions Judge took somewhat a
strange view as regards the purpose for which PWs 6 and 7
visited Tuni. No question as to whether PW-6 came to Tuni to
purchase medicine for his mother or when she had been brought
D back from Cancer Hospital, Kakinada was put to him. Ordinarily,
no witness would carry any documentary proof to show that he
had purchased medicine at Tuni. No witness would keep the
bus ticket with himself to prove the fact that he travelled in the
bus a few years back. They had witnessed a gruesome murder
E in the night ran about 2 kms. to inform PW-2 about the
occurrence. If their testimonies otherwise are acceptable, we
are of the view that the same should not have been discarded
on such filmsy pretext. PW-5 was already in the bus. He did not
board at Tandava Centre. Why his evidence had not been
F accepted is not decipherable from the judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge. Reporting of the matter to the Village
Administrative Officer, in our opinion, was not of much
significance. The Village Administrative Officer has been
examined in this case. No suggestion was put to him that he
G was not aware of the incident. Even otherwise he was involved
in the investigation from 6 O'Clock in the morning. Even in the
inquest report, the commission of the offence was attributed to
the accused, to which he was a signatory.
29. PW-2 in his evidence categorically stated that PWs 6
H and 7 came to his house at about 11 O'Clock in the night and
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1099
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.)

informed him about the incident and some time thereafter the A
dead body of the deceased as also PW-1 arrived in the bus in
question. He not only found the dead body of his father, but also
found PW-1 lying in the bus in between two rows of seats with
bleeding injuries. An attempt was made to take him to the
hospital. He was placed in a tractor. However, the driver was B
not available.
t

..,. In the meanwhile only, the driver and the conductor of the
bus informed him that another bus would be coming from Tuni
Depot. PW-1 was taken to the hospital only in the said bus
leaving the dead body in the house. Strangely enough, apart c
from throwing a suggestion that PWs 6 and 7 did not inform him
about the incident, no other question was put to him to test the
veracity of his aforementioned statement. The events which took
place immediately after the occurrence, therefore, find
corroboration. We do not find any tinge of falsehood in his D
,.. statement. The sequence of events, which we have noticed
herein before, also corroborates the prosecution case in material
particulars. What, however, is significant is that PW-1 was not
believed at all. PW-1 was an injured witness. He may be an
interested witness. But then, there was no reason as to why he E
would falsely implicate the appellants. Both he and PW-2
disclose the motive on the part of the accused to commit the
offence. Enmity, as is well-known, is a double edged weapon. It
is too much to expect of a person to notice as to which weapon
~-.>\ would be carried by which accused. No accused would openly F
display them. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge,
therefore, that the accused were not seen prior to the occurrence
anywhere in the Tuni town or the bus stand till they were alleged
to have been seen in the bus, are perverse. It cannot be a ground
for discrediting their otherwise truthful witness. The learned Trial
G
Judge accepted in one part of the judgment that an injured
witness should be given credit but in the next sentence he stated:
~ "But in this case his evidence does not inspire confidence."
'
No specific reason has been assigned in respect of the
H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A said statement.
30. A court in the process of its job of appreciation of
evidence may rely on a statement of a witness or may not. It
may even accept the evidence of a witness in part. But without
taking recourse to tha right methodology of appreciation of
B evidence, no court of law should jump to the conclusion that a
t
prosecution witness is wholly untrustworthy only because his
evidence has not been corroborated by other witnesses. ...
31. The learned Judge found that both ocular as also
c circumstantial evidence did not corroborate the testimony of
PW-1. Why he said so has not been stated. To what extent, the
medical evidence is in variance with the ocular evidence has
also not been discussed.
32. Lacerated wounds were not only caused by assault
D with sticks but also when a person falls down on a hard surface. r
PW-1 was found in an injured condition in between two rows of
seats. He was dragged like his father.
33. We may, however, notice that in his statement before
PW-10 Dr. K. Indira Surya Kumari has stated that he had been
E assaulted with stick and other sharp cutting weapons. Even if
this part of the evidence is ignored, still then there are enough
explanations available on record to suggest as to how lacerated
wound could have been caused to him.
... "
F 34. The learned Sessions Judge opined that the bus might
not have been stopped near the place of occurrence. Why, how
and where an offence is committed cannot be a subject matter
of guess. The fact that the accused persons had a motive also
stands unrebutted. It is not the case of the accused that the
matter relating to the Sessions Case in which the deceased
G
and other relatives were facing trial was not fixed in the court of
Tuni on that day. The date admittedly was fixed for commitment
of the trial to a Court of Sessions. For one reason or the other it ~

was adjourned. If taking advantage of the said situation as also
in view of th«~ fact that they were travelling in the same bus and
H
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1101
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

the bus was passing through a lonely place, Accused No. 1 gave A
+- exhortation to kill the deceased resulting in the death of the
deceased and sufferance of injur\es by PW-1, it cannot be said
to be absurd on the face of it. The question posed as to why the
accused had chosen the said occasion is not for a court of law
to answer. A sweeping statement has been made by the learned B
Sessions Judge that presence of prosecution witnesses in the
•· bus is highly doubtful. It was not to be readily inferred. The learned
Sessions Judge found:
"... The presence of PWs in the bus is highly doubtful. The
overt acts attributed to particular accused causing . c
particular injuries to the deceased and PW1 is discrepant
from one witness to other. The medical evidence is in
variance with the evid.ence of PW 1, 5, 6 and 7 as to the
nature of the injuries and also as to the nature of the

I
., weapons used for causing injuries to PW1 and the D
deceased. The evidence as to the arrest and seizure of
lilt' material objects is arbitrary. None of the witnesses have
stated that there was sufficient light for them to witness the
occurrence. It is only in court for the first time an attempt
to prove that there was light is made by PWs 1, 5, 7 but E
that was also falsified by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. At
any rate it is doubtful. None of the witnesses amongst
PWs 5, 6 and 7 thought of giving report to VAO who is
residing just opposite to the house of PW~ 1. Above all, the
~ " evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and also the circumstances F
admit that a report was recorded from PW1 earlier than
Ex. P.2 but that is not produced. The general diary sought
for-by the accused has not been produced. The explanation
for non-production of the same is not convincing ... "
35. We have not seen much discussions on the part of G
the learned Judge in his judgment to discredit the arrest of the
accused persons and seizure of material objects. Why such
I-
• evidence was termed arbitrary is beyond any comprehension .
So far as sufficiency of the light for identification of the
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A witnesses to identify the accused is concerned, suffice it to say
that they belonged to the same village. They have been fighting
litigations for years. It is too much to say that even in that situation
the identity of the accused persons would not be known to the
prosecution witnesses. All the passengers were sitting in their
B respective seats for a long time. They boarded the bus at the
same place. Their destinations were same. The High Court, in
~
our opinion, has rightly noticed that as the deceased and the
accused persons were sitting just behind the seat of the
conductor where a light was on, it was possible for the
c prosecution witnesses to identify the accused persons
committing the offence.
36. Non-production of the general diary by itself cannot be
a ground for disbelieving the entire prosecution case particularly
when apart from a solitary statement made by PW-3 in his note,
D no other evidence has been brought on records to show that
·~·
statement of any witness had been recorded under Section 161
·~
of the Code. It will bear .repetition to state that apart from
recording the statements by the investigating officers, viz., PWs
16, 17 and 18 who had no role to play in the matter of lodging
E the First Information Report. Some statements were recorded
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
37. In Dharmendrasinh Alias Mansing Ratansinh (supra),
this Court opined that when the evidence of a witness is found

F
to be natural, the same should be believed.
38. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court, in our
. ...

view, rightly recorded:
"35. When attack is made by several persons
simultaneously, it is impossible for any person to say the
G particulars regarding the nature of weapon, which person
was attacked by the accused and which part of the body
they caused injuries. The witnesses tried their best to
describe the specific overt acts and the places, parts of ••
the body on which the injuries were caused and the nature
H of weapons used. Simply because the witnesses failed to
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1103
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

give parrot-like version describing everything in a minute A
manner the argument that the evidence cannot be believed
is a far fetched argument and on the pretext of not giving
those details by the witnesses though observed the attack
cannot be thrown out and due weight has to be given to
the evidence of witnesses, if their evidence is truthful and B
f acceptable. Therefore, the trial court went by giving the
~ reasons beyond the imagination of the witnesses, arrived
~
at its own conclusions with a view to give the benefit of
doubt to the accused. Simply because PW-1 is also an
accused in the other case, his presence cannot be c
disputed and when he received injuries in the incident, his
evidence is brushed aside on the ground that his evidence
did not corroborate the evidence of PWs 5 to 7. Simply
because there was enmity between the accused and the
prosecution party, it cannot be said that an injured witness
D
~ is also speaking all the lies. The truthfulness ofthe version
given by such witnesses can be verified from the other
circumstances whether their version. is truthful and
acceptable in the circumstances placed by the prosecution.
It cannot be brushed aside automatically simply on the
ground that he is inimical to the accused. The accused E
are known persons and the prosecution witnesses and
the accused belonging to the same village. Therefore, it is
not impossible to the witnesses to identify the accused
with little light. The trial Court admitted that usually there
""~
will be lights in the bus, but as PWs 3 and 4 said that there F
was no light at the time of occurrence, their version has
been accepted. PWs 3 and 4 did not completely mention
the particulars of the incident except saying that when
there was a commotion they got down from the bus and
after the incident they got into the bus. They were not G
inclined to give the particulars regarding the weapons held
by the accused, the number of persons got down from the
,. t- bus, the nature of injuries received by the deceased and
PW-1, whether the accused ran away after the incident
etc. Therefore, PWs 3 and 4 did not wholeheartedly come H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A forward to give_ the complete version. They might have
been desisted from giving the particulars by expecting --;
that there may be a trouble to them if the names of the
accused are given. They did not mention any special
reason as to how A-1 to A-3 were only remembered and
B other accused could not be remembered when they were
regularly going to the village and taking passengers from
the village. Therefore, the trial Court accepting the evidence
of PWs 3 and 4 and rejecting the evidence of PWs 1, 5,
6 and 7 is not appreciable and it is only to acquit the
c accused."
39. We do not see any reason to take any exception to the
said findings of the High Court.
40. Although not argued but we may also take note of the
fact that according to PW-1, he was assaulted and dragged by
0
Accused Nos. 11 to 24. They have been acquitted. That may r-
lead us to the conclusion that one part of the story implicating
the appellants herein ·in the matter of assault to him is not
exceptionable but then the accused formed a common intention/
common object at the spot. Such a large number of injuries both
E on the deceased as also PW-1 were not possible to be caused
only by a handful of persons. It must have taken place within a
few minutes. The entire incident was described by PWs 3 and
4 only. It was only when all the passengers fled away, they also
fled away. They even did not notice the dead body or PW-1 in ~- ,,
F an injured condition. ·
41. Furthermore, it is a well-settled principle of law that the
maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in
India. If the High court has given benefit of doubt to Accused
G Nos. 11 to 24, the same by itself may not be sufficient to extend
the same benefit to the rnain accused who took part in a brutal
murder of their arch enemy.
42. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the legal '
proposition that an appellate court while entertaining an appeal
H from a judgment of acquittal would not ordinarily interfere
ANIMIREDDY VENKATA RAMANA & ORS. v. PUBLIC 1105
I
PROSECUTOR, H.C. OF A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

therewith, if two views are possible. In our attempt to analyse A
..- the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, we have noticed very
serious infirmities therein both in regard to the legal propositions
..... as also appreciation of evidence. Non-consideration of material
facts and consideration of irrelevant tacts would be factors which
would invite an interference with the judgment of acquittal. B
~ This Court recently in Mahadeo Laxman Sarane & Anr. v.
State of Maharashtra [2007 (7) SCALE 137] held:

"18. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. We
are conscious of the settled legal position that in an appeal c
against acquittal the l:ligh Court ought not to interfere with
the order of acquittal if on the basis of the some evidence
two views are reasonably possible - one in favour of the
accused and the other against him. In such a case if the
Trial Court takes a view in favour of the accused, the High
D
-"\ Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal.
~ However, if the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly
unreasonable or the Trial Court records a finding of
acquittal on the basis of irrelevant or inadmissible
evidence, the High Court, if it reaches a conclusion that on
the evidence on record it is not reasonably possible to E
take another view, it may be justified in setting aside the
order of acquittal. We are of the view that in this case the
High Court was justified in setting aside the order of
.........._ acquittal."
F
In Swami Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (4)
SCALE 181], this Court opined:
"15. However, it is equally true that the High Court while
~
entertaining an appeal against a judgment of acquittal
would be entitled to consider the entire materials on records G
for the purpose of analyzing the evidence. There is a
presumption that an accused is innocent, unless proved
.rt- otherwise. When he is acquitted, the said presumption,
becomes stronger. But it may not be correct to contend
that despite overwhelming evidence available on records, H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A the appellate court would not interfere with a judgment of
acquittal. {See Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka ~
2007 (3) SCALE 90.}"
43. Which matter, therefore, deserves interference at the
h'ands of the appellate court would depend upon the fact situation
8 of each case. Legal proposition must be applied having regard
to the fact of each case.
44. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
C R.P. Appeal dismissed.

.