Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction, holding that the appeal was maintainable and the evidence, including that of interested witnesses, sufficiently proved the appellants’ guilt.

Summary

Chandra Mohan Tiwari and Ram Pal Singh Sengar were convicted of murder after the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a trial court acquittal. They appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 379 of the CrPC and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, challenging the High Court’s reversal of the acquittal, the alleged lack of motive, and the reliance on the victim’s parents as interested witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was maintainable and that the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence, finding that the prosecution had proved motive and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that interested witnesses are not per se unreliable and that the trial court’s acquittal was not reasonably sustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The appealability of a High Court judgment that reverses an acquittal and imposes life imprisonment under Section 379 CrPC and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement) Act, 1970.
Whether the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s acquittal on the basis of motive and the reliability of the victim’s parents as witnesses.
Whether the prosecution established a motive and proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 379
Constitution of Indias. Article 134(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 363, s. 366, s. 376
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2(a)

Subjects

criminal appealSection 379 CrPCSupreme Court (Enlargement) Actmurderinterested witnessesmotiveevidentiary assessmentlife imprisonmentappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

:

CHANDRA MOHAN TIW ARI AND ANR. A

~
1
-· -{
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JANUARY 22, 1992

[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA B
REDDY, JJ.]

Code qfCriminal Procedure. 1973: Section 379-Scope of

Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

~-
Act, 1970: $ection 2~<Jcope of c
Constitution ofIndia, I 950: Article l 34~<Jcope o(

-ft
Criminal Trial--,-Accused--Acquitta/ by Trial Court-Reversal of ac-
quittal by High Court and imposition of life sentence~1cope of right of
appeal by the accused~<Jcope of inte1.fere11ce hy Supreme Court in such D
appeals.

Criminal Trial-Murder-Motive-When motive is equally balanced
the Court should look to surrounding circu111stu11ces to/ind out the truth.
~
Criminal Trial-Related witnesses-Re/iahility of-Murder inside E
the house at the dead end 0(night-It isfittile to expect the prosecution to
produce iiulependent omsiclers as witness-Parents of the deceased are
prohahle and nalllral witnesses-He/cl though parents are interested wit-
nesses yet their evidence cannot he rejected simply on the_ ground that
they are interested witnesses--lnterested ivitnesses are not necessarily
.fal.<e tl'itnesses. F

The appellants were alleged to have kidnapped, wrongfully
-~
confined and raped S, the daughter of PWs S and 6. They were
~
prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376
of the Indian Penal Code. S was examined before the Magistrate
where she stated that because of the threat given by the appellants G
and as instructed by them she lodged a false report at the police
station implicating some other persons, whereas infact she was kid-
napped, wrongfully confined and raped hy the appellants. The Mag-
istrate, discharged the first appellant, and committed the second
appellant alone to take his trial. On a revision preferred against the
~ H
order of discharge of the first appellant both the appellants were
-r...
313
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A put up for trial before the third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
During the said trial both appellants were on bail. The case was
fixed for 21.8.1972 on which date the victim S was to be examined
as a prosecution witness. While the matter stood thus S lodged a
report at the Police Station complaining that the second appellant
had forcibly entered into the backyard of her house, but took to his
B heels when she raised a hue and cry.

However, it was alleged that on the night of 20.8.72, i.e. imme-
I
diately before the day when the case was fixed and victim S was to
be examined as a prosecution witness, the first appellant armed
with a pistol and the second appellant with a 'farsa' entered into the
c house of S and the first appellant fired a shot causing instantaneous
death of S The appellants were prosecuted for murder. The Sessions
Judge acquitted both the appellants. The State preferred an appeal
before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, set
aside the acquittal order and convicted the first appellant under
Section 302 and the second appellant under section 302, read with
:j
Section 34 !PC and sentenced e.ach of them to undergo imprison-
···~
ment for life. II

The appellants preferred an appeal to this Court under section
379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 2 (a) of the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
E Act, 1970 and it was contended on their behalf (i) that the High
Court erred in reviewing the evidence and reversing the order of
acquittal; (ii) that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of
the crime; (iii) the victim's parents were inimical towards the ap-
pellants and their evidence cannot be relied upon because they were
interested witnesses.
F
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD : 1. The Trial Court was wrong in jettisoning the entire
evidence in a very scanty and unsatisfactory manner with unsound
G reasoning. Whilst the Trial Court's conclusion was arrived at by
abjuring the unimpeachable and reliable evidence of parents of the
deceased on speculative reasons and unreasonable grounds, the con-
trary conclusion of the High Court based on the evolution of the
evidence does not suffer from any illegality or manifest error or
perversity nor is it erroneous. Fur !her, independent analysis of the A-·
H evidence hy this Court shows that there arc absolutely no substan-
C.M. T!WAR! v.STATE 315

" -< tial and compelling reasons to brush aside the testimony of these A
two eye-witnesses and to take a contrary finding to that of the High
Court. (331 C-D; F-GI

1.1 The organic synthesis of the events, circumstances and facts
of the case lead only to one conclusion, namely, that the prosecution
has satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow B
of doubt and consequently the judgment of the High Court docs not
call for any interference. (334 C'-D-E)

Tqrachand v. State (}(Maharashtra, AIR 1962 S.C. 130 = (1962)
2 S.C.R. 775; Kishan and Ors. v. State (}(Maharashtra, (1970) 3 S.C.C.
35; Mahebub Beg and Ors. v. State (}(Mahrashtra, (S.C.) (1966 Maharashtrac
L.J. 12; Babu v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 S.C. 1467=(1965) 2 S.C.R.
771; Podda Narayana and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975
S.C. 1252 = )1975) Supp. S.C.R. 84; Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh. A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1026=(1975) 3 S.C.C. 815; Rajendra
Prasad v. State of Bihar A.LR. 1977 S.C. 1059=(1977) 3 S.C.R. 68;
Kishore Singh aud Anr. v. The State o( Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1977 D
S.C. 2267 = (1978) l.S.C.R. 635; llhajan Singh and Ors. v, Stale (}(
Punjab, )1978) 4 S.C.C. 77; Dinanath Singh & Ors. v. State <~(Bihar,
A.LR. 1980 S.C. 1199 = (1980) 1 S.C.C. 674; Pattipati Venkaiah v.
State o( Andhru Pradesh (1985) 4 S.C.C. 80; Sita Ram and Ors. v.
State of U.P .. )1979) 2 S.C.C. 656; Rajput Ruda Meha and Ors. v.
State of Gujarat, )1980) I S.C.C. 677; refercd to. E

Roop Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab. A.LR. 1973 S.C. 2617 =
)1974) 1 S.C.R. 528; Dargahi and ors. v. Stute of U.P., A.LR. 1973
S.C. 2695 = (1974) 3 S.C.C 302; flarati v. Stale of' U.P., A.LR. 1974
S.C. 839 = (1974) 3 S.C.R. 570; G./I. /'ate/ v. State of Maharashtra.
A.LR. 1979 S.C. 135 = (1978) 4 S.C.C. 371; Kanwali v. State of U.P. F
[1971) 3 S.C. C. 58; referred to.

2. There is overwhelming evidence both oral and documen-
tary in clearly establishing a strong motive for the appellants to put
an end to the life of the deceased. The. several impelling circum-
G
stances attending the case namely, the prior incident of kidnapping
and rape, the conduct of the deceased in giving her statement sup-
porting the case of the proscctuion, the lodging of the complaint by
S against the second appellant and lastly the posting of the case for
recording the evidence of S when taken in conjunction with the
evidence of parents of the victim unevasivcly and unerringly show H
that these two appellants had strong motive to snap the life thread
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A of the victim so that she could not give evidence on the next day .in ' ~
the case of kidnaping and rape. [327 C-D-E; 328 A-D-C]

State o/f'imjab v. f'ri/11111 singh, (1977] 4 S.C.C. 56; relied on.

3. Interested witnesses arc not necessarily false witnesses though
B the fact that those witnesses have personal interest or stake in the
matter must put the court on its guard, that the evidence of such
witnesses must he suhjected to close scrutiny and the Court must
assess the testimony of each important witness and indicate the rea-
sons for accepting or rejecting it and that no evidence should be at ..illll
once disregarded simply because it came from interested parties. ~
C [330 A-8]

Siya /111111 Rai v. State ()( Bihar, [1973] 3 S.C.C. 241; Sarwan
Singh v. Stall! o(Punjab, (1976] 4 S.C.C. 369; Birbal v. Kedar, A.LR.
1977 S.C. 1=[1977) 2 S.C.R. I ; Gopal singh v. State of U.P .. A.LR.
1979 S.C. 1822=[1978[ 3 S.C.C. 327; Hari Obulla Reddy & Ors. v.
D ,\"tu/I! of A11<//1ru Pradesh. [1981) 3 S.C.C. 675; Anvaruddin & Ors. v.
Shakoor & Ors .. [1990) 2 Judgments today S.C. 83; relied on.

3.1 The evidence of parents of the deceased cannot be thrown
over-hoard simply on the ground that their evidence is of the inter-
ested party hecause when the occurrence had taken place inside the
E house, that too at dead of night, it would be futile to expect of the
prosecution to produce independent outsiders as witnesses. The par-
ents of the victim are the natural and probable eye-witnesses as the
incident had occur~ed in the odd hours inside their house. Being the
parents of the victim, they would be the least disposed to falsely
implicate the appellants or substitute them in place of the real cul-
F prit. [330 D; 328 E; 331 EJ
,.
3.2 The chronology of events narrated and the factual con- '
spectus recounted hy the parents of the deceased arc unshakable
and tlH• intrinsic quality of the evidence of these two witnesses com-
pel lhis Court to implicitly rely on their testimony and to accept the
G same. In spite of the fact that these two witnesses have been sub-
jcl'tcd to intensive and incissivc cross-examination, nothing tangihlc
has hccn hrought for discarding their testimony. No doubt, the ear-
lier conduct of the appellants in kidnapping and forcihly raping
thc'ir <laughter, the victim should have inflicted deeper wounds in
thl' 1uind.., of tlu.~sc t\\·o \\'itncsscs, but that cannot in any \\'ay destroy _,-{.
H the v:d11t' of fhcir evidence \vhich is cogent and trust\vorthy.
[3311 II: .\JI A-Bl
C.M. TIWARI v. STATE IPAND!AN, J.] 317

., '· . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIS.DICTION: Criminal Appeal No. A
36 of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.1978 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1973 ..

A.N. Mulla, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the B
Appellants.

B.Y. Kulkarni and Uma Nath Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
S. RA TNA VEL PANDIAN, J, The two appellants, namely, Chandra
Mohan Tiwari and Ram Pal Singh Sengar have tiled this criminal appeal
challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated
17th of November 1978 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1973, whereby the High Court
has allowed the appeal preferred by the State by setting aside the order of D
acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted the first appellant under
Section 302 !PC and the second appellant under Section 302 read with 34
!PC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.

The matrix of·the case which has led to the filing of this appeal
briefly stated is as follows : E

PW-6 Ahiwaransingh was at the material time, a compounder in the
Veterinary Hospital, Budhni. He was residing in one of the quarters situ-
ated in the compound of the Veterinary Hospital. On the opposite side of
the. cornpound there are Government quarters, one of which was occupied
by appellant Ram Pal Singh (Appellant 1'jo. 2), who was serving as Gram F
Sevak iu the Block Development office. He is married and distantly re-
lated to PW-6. The first appellant Chandra Mohan Tiwari was wielding
high influence in that locality ·and was well known to the members of the
family of PW-6. It appears that he contested the election to.the Legislative
Assembly from Budhni constituency.
G
The members of the family of PW-6 included PW-5. the deceased
Saroj aged about 16 years, who are PW-6's wife and eldest daughter
respectively. PW-6 had settled the marriage of his daughter Saroj at
Dahiyapur, Etawali District (U.P.). On 24.5.1970 he along with his de-
ceased daughter, Saroj. left Budhni for Bhopal enroute to Dahiyapur. Al
Bhopal he stayed with his relative by name Arjun Singh. On 25.5.1970 31 .I-''
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11992] I S.C.R.

A about 11.00 A.M. PW-6 had gone to the market leaving Saroj alone in the
house. According to the prosecution, the second Appellant came to the
house of PW -6 and told Saroj that her father wanted her presence for
selection of clothes. Saroj believing the words of second appellant and
without entertaining any doubt on the representation of the second appel-
lant accompanied him in a jeep which was driven by the first appellant.
B Then she was taken to a house ·where she was wrongfully confined for
about two aud a half months. During this period both the appellants are
stated to have forcibly committed sexual intercourse with Saroj. PW-6 lost
his nerve on the sudden disappearance of his daughter, but he ·instead of
lodging a report with the police, which evidently he thought would ad-
versely affect the future life of his daughter and her impending marriage
c and also bring the family in disrepute, unsuccessfully made a frantic and
intensive search for his daughter. Then he lodged a report Ex. P/l 0 on
3.8.1970 at the Police Station of Mangalwara, alleging that he had reason
to believe that Saroj might have been kidnapped by both the appellants.
The police did not take any prompt action on the report. By that time, the ·
appellants. on coming to know of the lodging of the report, devised a plan
D to fore-stall any action being taken against them. The second appellant
took Saroj in a taxi to Hoshangabad and left her ne~r the police station
with an instruction to lodge a false complaint at the police station that she
was kidnapped from Bhopal on 25.5.1970 by one Ramnath and lndrasen
and was wrongfully confined by them. She was also threatened that the
appellants would be keeping a watch over her and that in· case she di-
E vulged the truth, serious consequences would follow. As instructed by the
second appellant, Saroj lodged a complaint Ex. 0/15 on 9.8.1970 at
Hoshangabad Police Station. However, when she was taken to the Police
Station, Mangalwara in connection with the report, lodged by her father
(PW -6) she told the entire truth to the\ police and her parents. Even then
no progress was made in the investigation on the report of PW -6 at
F Mangalwara. So PW-6 made a fervent ple:yto the then Chief Minister of
the State and requested him to take action in the matter. It was only
thereafter, on the instructions of the higher authorities wheels of inves,ti-
gation started moving on. The police after completing the investigation
filed the charge sheet before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial)
Bhopal against both these two appellants for offences punishable under
G Sections 363, 366 and 376 !PC. ·

The victim Saroj, when examined before the Magistrate on 12.7.1971
stated in her statement Ex. P/25 that she was kidnapped by both the
appellants and wrongfully confined and also subjected to sexual inter-
course and that she lodged the false report Ex. D/15 at the Hoshangabad
H police station under duress and as instructed by the second appellant
C.M. TIWARI ''·STATE [PANDIAN, J.] 319
.... .•.
herein. The Magistrate discharged the first appellant, and committed the A
second appellant alone to take his trial. On a revision preferred against the
~
order of discharge of the first appellant both the appellants were put up for
trial before the third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Case
Nos. 66 and 95 of 1972 for offences punishable under sections 363, 366
and 376 !PC. During the said trial both appellants were on bail. The case
was fixed for recording evidence from 21.8.1972 on which date the victim B
Saroj was to be examined as a prosecution witness. While the matter stood
thus, according to the prosecution, on 20.6.72 Saroj lodged a report
Ex. P/7 at Budhni Police Station complaining that the second appellant
had forcibly entered into the backyard of her house, but took to his heels

r•
when she raised a hue and cry.

In the above background, the present occurrence had occurred on the
intervening night of 20/21 st August 1972. The prosecution case is that on
that fateful night the first appellant armed with a pistol and the s.econd
c

appellant with a 'farsa' entered into the house of PW-6 through the mai.n
.door which was kept ajar by PW-5 who went out of the house to answer
call of nature inside the compound and that the first appellant fired a shot D
which hit on the chest of the victim Saroj, who was then in her bed and
caused her instantaneous death. Both PWs 5 and 6 indentified the appel-
!ants as the assailants. PW-6 tried to chase the appellants. but he stumbled
near the gate of the compound and could not apprehend them. The distress
cries of PWs 5 and 6 attracted the neighbours to the scene. PW-6 narrated
the incident to PWs I and 2 by mentioning the name of the appellants as E
the assailants and requested PW-I to lodge a report at the police station.
Accordingly, PW-I lodged the First Information Report Ex. P/I at 1.30
A.M. PW-18, the investigating officer took up the investigation during the
course of which he inspected the scene of the occurrence, held in quest
and then sent the dead body to the hospital for necropsy. On the next day
i.e. on 21.8.72 both the appellants were arrested when they had come to F
) attend the hearing of the case of kidnaping and rape. After completing the
' investigation both the appellants were put up for trial. The Sessions Judge
of Indore found both appellants not guilty of the offence of murder and
consequently acquitted them. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the
Trial Court, the State preferred the appeal before the High Court. which
for the detailed discussion made in its judgment held that the prosecution G
has satisfactorily established the guilt of both appellants beyond all rea-
sonable doubts, allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the
Trial Court acquitting the appellants and convicted the first appellant
under section 302 and the second appellant under Section 302 read with
Section 34 !PC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for
-'--·
life. Hence the present appeal is preferred by the appellants on being H
aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 1 S.C.R.

A Mr. A.N. Mulla, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants after taking us in detail through the judgment of the courts
below, evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses and in
particular Ex. D/15, the First Information Report dated 9.8.70 relating to
the offence of kidnaping and rape registered on the basis of the complaint
given by the deceased Saroj at Hoshangabad Police Station, vehemently
B submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive
for the occurrence. The learned counsel perfervidly advanced his argu-
ment inter-aha contending that the High Court has erred in reversing the
judgment of the Trial Court based on well reasoned and considered find-
ings of fact, ignoring the settled principles of law as laid down by this
Court as regards the scope of interference of the High Court in an appeal
c preferred against an order of acquittal, that the evidence of PWs 5 and 6
who had developed rancur and were inimically disposed towards the ap-
pellants ought not to have been a.ccepted and implicitly relied upon as
their testimony is highly tainted with interestedness, that the contents of
Ex. D-15 whereby the deceased had implicated Ram Nath Singh and one
Indra Sen as assailants of kidnaping belie the version of PW s 5 and 6 and
D negative the prosecution story as far as the motive is concerned, that the
evidence of PWs 5 and 6 suffers from the vice of discrepancies and
incongruities, that the non-recovery of any 'Iota' (a small vessel) from the
place where PW-5 was easing as well as the non-marking of the place
where the said vessel was kept in the site plan falsify the evidence of PW-
5 that she opened the door and went near the compound wall to answer
E call of nature. that the recovery of two bullets from the scene is an
indication of the fact that there should have been two shots, that there was
delay in laying the complaint, that the unchallenged claim of the appel-
lants that they were in Bhopal clearly shows that the appellants would not
have come to Budhni from Bhopal that too at the odd hours with an
anticipation that the door of the scene house would be kept open. The
F learned counsel further submits that had the appellants come to the scene
house to assassinate the victim Saroj, they would not have exposed them-
selves without covering their faces so that their indentity could not be
established and that the life of the girl might have been put to an end by
the inmates of the said house, particularly her father on account of some
conspiracy since the victim girl wanted te have the case of kidnaping and
G rape not to be proceeded with.

Before adverting to the contentions, urged by the learned counsel.
we would like to briefly state the legal position regarding the right of
appeal of an accused person sentenced to imprisonment for life by the
High Court after reversing the order of acquittal and the scope of interfer-
H ence in such appeal by this court. The present appeal is under Section 379
C.M. TIWAR! v. STATE [PANDIAN, J.J 321

of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the A
'code') and Section 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal
Appellate Jurisdiction) Act of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of
1970'). Section 379 of the Code contemplates that where the High Court
has, on appeal, reversed an order or acquittal of an accused person and
convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or
to imprisonment for a term of ten years of more, that person may appeal B
to the Supreme Court. This section is newly introduced in the Code of
1973 (Act 2 of 1974) on the recommendation of the Law Commission of
India in its 41st Repon. Anicle 134 (!)(a) of the Constitution envisages
that 'an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Coun from any judgment, final
order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Coun in the territory
of India if the High Coun has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of C
an accused person and sentenced him t.o death. To say in other words
under Article 134 (!)(a) the absolute right of appeal to the Supreme Court
is restricted only to cases where the High Court reverses an order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court and awards the sentence 11( death. The
right of appeal is also extended under Article 134 (I) (b) to cases where
the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any D
court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the ac-
cused person and sentenced hin1 to death, which type of cases are rare and
infrequent occurrence. Under clause (c} of the above said Article an ap-
peal lies to the Supreme Court on a certificate under Article !34A by the
High Coun cenifying that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court but, of course, subject to the proviso to Article 134 (! ). E

In this connection, it. is pertinent to note that the Govern1nent of
Madras (as then called) expressed its view that the limited right of appeal
now conferred in case of the persons sentenced to death by clauses (a) and
(b) of Article 134 (I) should be enlarged and that in all cases in which the
accused persons are sentenced to death, there should be a right of appeal F
to the Supreme Coun without the need of a certificate from the High
Court. This view was rejected by the Law Commission of India in its 14th
Report stating that even in cases not covered by clauses (a) and (b) of
Article 134 (I) the High Court has the power to certify the case as a fit
one for appeal to the Supreme Coun under Clause (c) and further there is
also the safeguard provided by the wide powers of the Supreme Court G
under Article 136 which confers a discretionary power on the Court to
interfere by granting special leave to appeal in suitable cases including
cases where the High court has refused to grant Cenificate for appeal
under Article !34 (A). See the decision of the constitution Bench in
_,..,.__ Tamdwnd v. State o(Mahamshtru. AIR 1962 S.C. 130 ~ [1962] 2 SCR
775 and the later decision in Kishan and others v. ,)fate o.lMahurushtra. H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1992] I S.C.R.

A [1970] 3 SCC 35. To avoid proliferationwe are not citing all the decisions
on this aspect.
" .
The reason, given by the law Commission in its 14th Reports
(Volume I at page 52) for rejecting the view of the Government of Madras
is as follows:

B "We are not inclined to accept this view. For over a cqntury
such cases have been dealt with by the High Courts subject to
the superintendence of the Privy Coundl under its special leave
jurisdiction and there is no reason why the High Courts should
not continue to deal with such cases in the same manner.''
In 1968 a Private Member's Bill was introduced in Parliament which
c proposed that the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court contemplated
under Article 134 (I) (a) and (bl should be enlarged to cover cases where
the High Court has, after reversing an order of acquittal, sentenced a
person to imprisonment for life or for IO years or more. Be that as it may
in its 4lst Report, the Law Commission expressed its view that the limita-
tion of the right of appeal under Article 134(1) (a) and (b) applies only to
D
cases of death but not to cases of imprisonment for life awarded by the
High Court or appeal against acquittal and that limitation "is too stringent
and hot easily justifiable and that the convicted persons ought to have a
right of appeal in such cases". The Law Commission, at the same time.
was not in favour of extending this right of appeal in which the High
Court has on appeal against acquittal sentenced a person to in1priso111nent
E
for a term of I 0 years or more. and proposed a new Section 417-B restrict-
ing such appeal to the Supreme Court only in cases of sentence of
imprisonment for life. While so, the Joint Select Committee by its report
dated 4th December. 1972 drafted clause 379 (original clause 389) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure Bill 1970 (page xxvi) which reads thus:
F "The amendment has been made to bring the provision of the
clause in line with the provisions of the Sup_reme Court (En-
largement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 .
.Vide the 14th Report of the Law Commission (at page 52) and the
41st Report of the Law Commission (paragraphs 31.65 to 31.69 at pages
G 281-283).
Section 2 of the Act of 1970 reads thus :
2. l·.,'11/(Jr>:ed ll{Jju~llute j11risdiction ,~/ Supreu1e ( 'ourt in re-
g11nl to ('l'in1i11al 11u1tte1:\·. Without prejudice to the powers con-
ferred on the Supreme Court by clause (I) of Art. 134 of the
Constitution, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from
H any judg1nent. final order of sentence in a cri1ninal proceeding
C.M. TIWARI v. STATE [PANDIAN, J.J 323

of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court- A
(a) has an appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused
person and sentenfod him to imprisonment for life or to
imprisomneut for a period of not less than ten years ;

(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any B
court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial
convicted the accused person and sentenced him to im-
prisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not
less than ten years."
I The right of appeal under the above Section to the Supreme Court is C
an addition to those provided under Article 134(1) of the Constitution. In
cases which do not come under clauses (a) and (b) of Article 134(1) or
under the Act of 1970 or·Section 379 of the Code an appeal does not lie as
q/'right to the Supreme Court agailfst any order of conviction by the High
Court. In such cases, appeal will lie only if a certificate is granted by the
High Court under sub-clause (c) of Article 134 (I) certifying that the case D
is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court or by way of special leave
under Article 136 when the certificate is refused by the High Court. See
Mahebub Beg and otheis v. State<!/' Maharashtra, (S.C.) CR. A. .120/64
dated 19.3.1965 reported in.1966 Maharashtra law.!ournal 12 and Balm
v. State of'lJl'. AIR, 1965 S.C. 1467 = [1965] 2 SCR 771.
E
The resultant position of law from the co1tjoined reading of the
above provisions of the Constitution, the Act of 1970 and the Code of
Criminal Procedure is as follows:

(I) Under sub-clause (a) of Article 134 (I) an appeal lies as o/'11i;ht
to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has re- F
versed an order of acquittal of an accused person a11d se1itenced
him to death.

(2) Under sub-clause (bl of Article 134 (I) an appeal lies as <!/' rii;ht
to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has with-
draWn the case for trial before itself from any court subordinate G
to its authority and sentenced him to death.

(3) Under Section 2 (a) of.the Act of 1970 an appeal lies as o(rii;ht
to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has re-
versed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced
him to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a period of not H
less than I 0 years.
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] I S.C.R.

A (4) Under Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1970 an appeal lies as of right
to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has with-
drawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate
to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person
and sentenced him to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
a period of not less than I 0 years.
B (5) Under Section 379 of the Code, which is now newly introduced
in line with the Constitutional provisions of Article 134 (I) (a)
and (b) and with Section 2 of the Act of 1970, an appeal lies as
~(right to the Supreme Court in a case where the High Court has
on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person

c
and convicted and sentenced him either to death or to imprison-
ment for life or imprisonment for a tenn of I 0 years or more.
(6) In cases not covered by Article 134 (I) (a) and (b) or Section 2
(a) and (b) of the Act of 1970 or by Section 379 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure an appeal will lie only either on a certificate
granted by the High Court under Article 134 (I) (c) or by grant
'
I

of special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court under Article
D
136.
The right of appeal given under Section 379 of the Code is in line
with Article 134 (I) (a) and (b) and Section 2 (a) and (bl of the Act of
1970.

E This Court in Podda Narayana and others v. State o(Andhra Pradesh.
AIR 1975 S.C. 1252 = (1975] (Supp) SCR 84 had an occasion to examine
the scope of Section 2 of the Act of 1970 and held thus:

"As the High Court had awarded the sentence of life imprison-
ment after reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Addi-
tional Sessions Judge the appeal to the Supreme Court lies
F
even on facts and as a matter of right under Section 2 of the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdic-
tion) Act. 1970."

M.H. Beg. J. as he then was, speaking for the Bench in Ram Kumar
Pande v. Tlte State ()(Madhya Pradesh. AIR 1975 S.C.1026 = (1975] 3
G sec 815 observed as follows :
"Strictly speaking. no certificate of the High Court is required
for such an appeal where an acquittal has been converted into
a conviction under S. 302/34 I. P.C.. and a sentence of life
imprisonment imposed upon an accused person. The appeal. in
H such a case. lies as a matter of right to this Court under the Act
of 1970."
C.M. TIWARI v STATE IPANDIAN, J.] 325

This Court in Rajendra Prasad v. State Qf Bihm·, AIR 1977 S.C. A
1059 ~ [1977) 3 SCR 68 while disposing of an appeal preferred under
Section 2 (a) oftbe Act of 1970 laid down the following dictum:

"Thus when two courts, have come to a different conclusion
on the same evidence, we had ourselves to go through the
entire evidence carefully in order to see whether the apprecia- B
tion of the evidence by the Sessions Judge was so unreason-
able and unrealistic as to e1ltitle the High Court to interfere
with the same."
In Kishore Singh and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1977 S.C. 2267 ~ [1978] I SCR 635 the following view similar to the one C
taken iii Ram Kumar Pande's case was reaffirmed and it reads thus:

"The High Court is not right in holding that a certificate is
necessary under Article 134 (I) (c) of the Constitution if the
appellants have a right of appeal under Section 2 of the Act."
In Ram Kumar Pande 's case, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court D
to interfere in a judgment of the High Court reversing the acquittal of the
Trial Court and convicting the accused person and sentencing him to life
imprisorunent, in respect of which an appeal to the Supreme Court lies as
ofriRllf was examined and the following maxim has been laid down.

"The well settled rule of practice in a case of an appeal against E
an acquittal is that the appellate Court should not interfere
with the acquittal merely because it can take one of the two
reasonably possible views which favours conviction. But, if
the view of the Trial Court is not reasonably sustainable, on
the evidence on record. the Appellate Court will interfere with
an acquittal. If the Appellate Court sets aside an acquittal and F
convicts, we have to be satisfied, after examining the prosecu-
tio1_1 and defence cases and the crucial points e1nerging for
decision from the facts of the case, that the view taken by the
Trial Court, on evidence on record, is at least as acceptable as
the one taken by the High Court, before we could interfere -
with the High Court's judgment." G
Kailasam, J. speaking for the Bench in l/h4jan Singh and others v.
Staie· of f'1111jah, [1978) 4 SCC 77 dealing with the scope of .the appeal
before the Supreme Court filed under Section 2 (a) of the Act of 1970
observed thus :
H
"As a court of appeal this Court has got to go into all the
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1992) 1 S.C.R.

A questions of fact and law and decide the case on its merit.
After a right of appeal has been provided under the said sec-
tion, the question, whether the High Court interfered on suffi-
cient ground or not, will not be material, as this Court has to
decide the case on its own merits. The decisions, regarding the
scope of appeal against au acquittal, the powers of the High
B Court to interfere in an appeal against acquittal by the State,
which may be relevant when the Supreme Court is acting un-
der Article 136, are not material in deciding an appeal by a
person, whose acquittal.has been set aside by the High Court,
and who is entitled to prefer an appeal to this Court."

c In Dinanath Singh & others v. State of flilwr, AIR 1980 S.C. 1199 =
[1980] I SCC 674, an appeal under Section 2 (a) of the Act of 1970 was
directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court convicting the
appellants therein under Section 302 read with 34 !PC and sentencing
them to imprisonment for life by reversing the order of acquittal of the
Trial Court. While disposing the appeal Fazal Ali, J. speaking for the
D Bench pointed out thus :

"It is now well settled by the long course of decisions of this
Court that where the view taken by the trial court in acquitting
the accused is reasonably possible, even if the High Court
were to take a different view on the evidence, that is no ground
E for reversing the order of acquittal."

This Court while disposing an appeal filed under Section 379 of the
Code in l'a1tiJ1ati Venkaialt '"State o(A11</hra l'radesh, [1985] 4 SCC 80
affinned the order of conviction passed by the High Court on the ground
that the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the accused was extremely
F
perverse and no other reasonable view was ,possible than the guilt of the
accused.

Reference also may be had to Sita 1/11111 and Others v. State~( U.I'..
(1979] 2 SCC 656 and RajJIUI Ruda Me/111 a11d Others v. Stare 0((;1tjarat.
o (1980] 1 sec 677.

This Court in a catena of decisions have dealt with the power of the
High Court to review evidence and reverse order of acquittal and laid
down the guidelines in exercising that power. Though it is not necessary
for us in the present case to deal. with all those decisions, the following j
H may be referred to :
C.M. TIWARI '"STATE [PANDIAN, J..J 327

Roop Singh and othei:' v. ,\'rate 0(1'1111iah. AIR 1973 S.C. 2617 = A
[1974] I SCR 528; Dmga/li and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 S.C.
2695 = [1974] 3 SCC 302; Barati v. State<?( U.P.. AIR 1974 S.C.839 =
[1974] 3 SCR 570; G.B. Patel v. State of Maharashtra. AIR 1979 S.C.
135 = 1978 (4)SCC 371; and Kamva/i v. Stale o[U.P. [1971] 3 SCC 58.

Having regard to the above principle of law, we shall now carefully B
scrutinize the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and examine the
· contentions advanced by Mr. Mulla and decide the case on its merit,
independent of the .views expressed by the High Court in its impugned
judgment:

Motive fin· the murder: c
There is overwhelming evidence both oral and documentary in clearly
establishing a strong motive for the appellants/accused to put an end to
the life of the deceased Saroj, who when examined before the Magistrate
on 12.7.1991 had deposed under Ex. P/25 that she was kidnapped by both D
the appellants, wrongfully confined and subjected to sexual intercourse,
though she initially lodged a report under Ex. D-15 on 9.8.70 at the
Hoshangabad police station .against some other persons exculpating these
two appellants. Earlier to her examination before the Magistrate the de-
ceased lodged a report Ex. P-7 on 20.6.1972 at Budhni police station
complaining that the second appellant had forcibly entered into the backyard E
of her house and on her raising a cry he took to his heels. The trial of the
case against both the appellants before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhopal in Sessions Case Nos. 66 and 95 of 1972 under Sections 363, 366
and 376 !PC was fixed for recording the evidence of the victim in that
case, namely, the deceased herei1f from 21.8.1972. Both the appelfants
were on bail in the case of kidnaping and rape during the period of the F
occurrence in question which occurred on the intervening night of 20/21 st
August 1972. The leamed counsel for the appellauts has submitted that
PWs 5 and 6 had sufficient motive to implicate both the appellants in this
heinous crime of murder as these two appellants according to both PWs
had spoiled the future ·career of their daughter, deceased Saroj by kiduaping
and committing rape on her even if the identity of the real assailant/
G
assailants was or were not known and further there was every possibility
of PW-6 falsely implicating these two appellants on strong suspicion. As
stated by Fazal Ali, J. in State o/l'11njab v. /'ritam Singh, [1977] 4 SCC
56 "when the motive was equally balanced, the Court had to look to ·
surrounding circu1nstances in order to find out the truth.''· H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992J I S.C.R. '

A This is not a case solely based on circumstantial evidence, but on
the other hand there are two eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely,
PWs 5 and 6. The several impelling circumstances attending the case
namely, the prior incident of kidnaping and· rape, the conduct of the
deceased Saroj in giving her statement under Ex. P. 25 supporting the case
of the prosecution registered on the complaint given by PW- I at the
B instance of PW-6, the lodging of the complaint under Ex. P-7 by Saroj on
20.6.72 against the second appellant and lastly the posting of the case for
recording the evidence of Saroj on 21.8.72-when taken in conjunction
with the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, unevasively and unerringly show that
these two appellants had strong motive to snap the life threat of the victim
so that she could not give evidence on the next day in the case of kidnaping
c and rape.

The contents of Ex. D-15 cannot be said to have whittled down the
veracity of the prosecution case as regards the motive for the occurrence.
On the other hand, the subsequent statement made by the deceased under,
the Ex. P/25 explaining under what circumstances she was forced to give
D Ex. D-15 would also serve as a corroborating piece of evideace in estab-
lishing the motive for the occurrence.

Ocular Tes'.imony :

As per the prosecution, due to the above motive the appellants have
E resorted in perpetrating this dastardly and heinous crime, PWs 5 and 6
though the parents of tl\e victim, are the natural and probable eye wit-
nesses as the incident had occurred in the odd hours inside their house
wherein these two witnesses and their 4 daughters including the dece:L'"d
· Saroj were the inmates. Accprding to these two witnesses by about 12 or
12.30 mid-night PW-5 went out of the house by opening the main door to
F answer call of naiure within the compound. Besides moon-light. there was
electric light within the compound. Added to that there was also electric
light burning in the residential quarter of Doctor Sahib shedding Iight
inside the compound of the scene house. PW-5 sighting the two appellants
yelled out. She found the appellai1t Chandra Mohan Tiwari having a small
gun and the second appellant Rampa!· Sin~h being armed with a farsa. On
G hearing the cry of PW-5, Saroj woke up. PW-6 who had earlier been
awakened by his wife (PW-5) saw both the appellants entering into his
house with their respective weapons. The deceased Saroj on seeing the
two appellants hardly uttered 'Babaji'. Suddenly the first appellant fired a
shot which hit Saroj. On receipt of the injury Saroj fell down on her cot.
Thereafter both the appellants fled away. PW-5 witnessed both the appel-
...J- •
H lants entering into the room and beard the sound of a·gun shot and the
'
""J C.M. TlWARI 1<. STATE (PANDIAN, J.J 329
... -< appellants thereafter running out of the ·house.· While PW-5 yelled out, A
PW-6 ran after the appellants up to the compound shouting that the appel-
lants had fired a gun shot at Saroj. On coming out of the compound, PW-6
fell down. PWs l, 2 and others who rushed to· the scene on hearing the
'• shrieks and shouts of PWs 5 and 6 lifted PW-6 and brought him inside the
' house. PWs I, 2 and others asked PW-6 as to wh;tt had happened. PW-6
told them that the first appellant had fired a shot at his daughter Saroj and s.
thereafter both the appellants had fled away from the scene. The victim
Saroj by that time was struggling for breathing and gasping ..PW- I has
testified to the fact that he arrived at the scene on hearing the shouting of
PW-6 "killed, killed" and found PW~6 lying down outside the main gate
•'( of his compound, that PW-I and others lifted PW-6 and brought him
inside the house, that on being asked PW-6 informed PW- l and others that c
Seugar and "Tiwari (referring to both appellants) had shot at his daughter
and that PW-6 requested him to lay a complaint at Budhni Police Station.

ii The Trial Court for the reasons given in its judgment observed that
the evidence of PW-5 as regards to the identity of the appellants is "to-
tally unreliable" and that of PW-6 appears to be "absurd and fantastic" D
and finally concluded thus:

" .......... .! find that the two accused persons had no motive to
perpetrate the crime in question, that one Gungasingh and pos-
sibly the father of the girl Ahivaransingh might have had stronger E
motive for perpetrating the murder, that it was impossible for
the accused persons to have been present at Budhni at ·12.30
that night and that it is most likely that they have been falsely
implicated in the murder by the political rivals of the accused
Chandra Mohan Tiwari and with the motive of preventing the
-- accused Ram Pal Singh over·getting married to Saroj." F
)_,
The entire prosecution as indicated ibid mainly rests on the evidence
of PWs 5 and 6 who ·ate the unfortunate parents of the victim and' who
speak about the motive of the occurrence and give a full detailed account
of the entire incident. In addition to the ocular testimony of PWs 5 and 6
the prosecution also relies upon the evidence of PWs I and 2, who came G
to the scene spot immediately after the occurrence and learnt frnm PWs 5
and 6 that the appellants were the perpetrators of the crime.

No doubt, it is true that the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 is that of the
-.!-_ interested party in that both of them are the parents of the victim and that
they had animus towards the appellants. As dexterously emphasised by the H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 19921 I S.C'.R.

A Supreme Court on many occasions that interested witnesses are not neces-
sarily false witnesses though the fact that those witnesses have personal
interest or stake in the matter must put the Court on its guard, that the
evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to close scrutiny and the
Court must assess the testimony of each important witness and indicate
the reasons for accepting or rejecting it and that no evidence should be at
B once disregarded simply because it came from interested parties. Vide
Siya Ram Rai v. State <i(llihar, [1973) 3 SCC 241; Sarwan Singh v. State
of P1111jah. [1976) 4 SCC 369; flirbal v. Kedar, AIR 1977 S.C.I = [1977)
2 SCR I; Gopal Singh v. State ()((J.P.. AIR 1979 S.C.1822 = [1978) 3
SCC 327 ; Hari Ob11//a Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
[1981)3 SCC 675; and Anva111ddin & Ors. v. Shakoor & Ors.. [1990)2
c Judgements Today S.C. 83.

After carefully scanning the evidence of PW s 5 and 6, we unreserv-
edly come to the conclusion that their evidence cannot be thrown over-
board simply on the ground that their evidence is of the interested party
because when the occurrence had taken place inside the house, that too at
D dead of night, it would be futile to expect of the prosecution to produce
independent outsiders as witnesses.

It was contended by Mr. Mulla that PWs 5 and 6 could not have
identified the assailants since according to PW-6 both assailants had cov-
ered their faces so that faces behind the mask could never be known to
E others and remain mystery for ever. But a careful reading of tl1e evidence
of PW-6 it1 our opinion does not support the conclusion sought to be
arrived at by the learned defence counsel. What PW-6 has admitted in the
cross-examination is that both the appellants had tied a towel on their
heads, but their identity was visible.

F It transpired· from the evidence of PWs I, 2 and 6 that PWs I and 2
who immediately came to the scene of the occurrence were informed by
PW-6 that the assailants were the two appellants. The spontaneous decla-
ration to PWs I and 2 by PW-6 without premeditation or any deliberation
or artifice by naming the appellants as assailants can be admitted as res
gestae and acted upon. It is significant to note in this connection that PW-
G 1 who laid the First Information Report Ex-.P-1 within an hour from the
ti1ne of the occurrence has 1nentioned the na1nes of these two appellants as
having been given by PW-6 at the scene immediately after the occurrence.
The FIR has been lodged without any loss of time though it has been
hesitatingly stated that there was a delay. The chronology of events nar-
rated and the factual conspectus recounted by PW s 5 and 6 are unshakable
H and the intrinsic quality of. the evidence of these two witnesses compel
C.M. TIWARI v. STATE [PANDIAN, J.] 331

this Court to implicitly rely on their testimony and to accept the same. In A
spite of the fact that these two PWs have been subjected to intensive and
incissive cross-examination, nothing tangible has been brought for dis-
carding their testimony. No doubt, the earlier conduct of the appellants in
kidnaping and forcibly raping their daughter, the victim should have in-
flicted deeper wounds in the minds of these two ~tnesses, but that cannot
in any way destroy the value of their evidence which is cogent and trust- B
Worthy.

l PWs 3 and 4 who were examined by the prosecution to speak about
the movement of the appellants near the scene at or about the time of the
occurrence have resiled from their earlier statements and have not .sup-
ported the prosecution case. The evidence of PWs 5 and 6 which is cor-
roborated by various other circumsiances would in our opinion suffice to
C

record a conviction against the appellants: The Trial Court appears to
have gone wrong in jettisoning the ·entire evidence in a very scantY. and
unsatisfactory manner with unsound reasoning. The non-recovery of 'Iota'
(a small vessel for taking water) and the non-marking. of the place where
• the said vessel was kept in the site plan are too tenuous and they do not in D
any way belittle the veracity of the prosecution case. The recovery of the
pellets below the dead body and the cork, usually fixed on cartridges from
the chest of the girl under the Memo Ex. P-4 as spoken by PWs 1 and I 8
amply corroborate the evidence of PW-6 and support the prosecution case
that the girl was shot dead in close range while she was on her bed.
E
Being the parents of the victim, they would be the least disposed to .
. falsely implicate the appellants or substitute them in place of the real
culprits. In our considered opinion, whilst the conclusion arrived at by the
Trial Court abjuring the unimpeachable and reliable evidence of PWs 5
. and 6 on speculative reasons and unreasonable grounds, the contrary con-
clusion of the High Court based on the evolution of the evidence does not F
suffer from any illegality or manifest error OP perversity. nor is it errone-
···~··. ous. Further, on our independent analysis of the. evidence we see abso-
juteJy no substantial and compelling reasons to brush aside the testimony
of these two eye-witnesses and to take a contrary finding to that of the
High Court.
G
Based on the evidence of OW-I, an advocate at Bhopal, who de-
fended the appellants herein in the kidnaping case and who had deposed
that on the night of 20.8.72 the first appellant was with him from 9/9.30
P.M. to 12 mid-night and who had filed Ex. P-30, an application before
the court stating that the first appellant was with him, an argument was
advanced that the appellants could not have gone to the scene village H .
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS p 992) I S.C.R.
A Budhni from Bhopal, when the distance .between the two places is abOut '" ~
40 miles and committed the offence of murder. In support of the evidence
of OW- I reliance has been placed on the testimony of OW s 2 to 4 of
whom OW 3 was the Proprietor of Chetna Lodge, who had testified to the
effect that the first appellant was in his lodge from 18th to 21st August as
borne out from the entry in Ex.0-11. A similar contention of alibi was
B also raised before the High court on the basis of the evidence of the··
defence witnesses and the High Court after discussing and deeply examin-
ing the testimony of the defence .witnesses made the following observa-
tions:

I. "It is with regret that we have to say that the testimony of this
c witness (PW I) does not inspire any confidence."
2. "It is surprising that the learned trial Judge should have placed
reliance on the testimony of OW-2 Ramakant and O.W.7
Ourgaprasad and come to the conclusion that accused Rampalsingh
could not have been at the scene of occurrence as he was at
Bhopal, forty miles away from the scene of occurrence, at the
D relevant time."
Further the High Court has correctly rejected the finding of the Trial
Court as an unreasonable one holding:

" ....... it is most likely that they have been falsely implicated in
this murder by the polit¢ai rivals of the accused Chandramohan
E
Tiwari and with the motive of preventing the accused
Rampalsingh ever getting married to Saroj."
We also after going through the evidence of the defence witnesses
are unable to accept the plea of alibi and are in total agreement with the
reasons given by the High Court for rejecting not only the plea of alibi but
F also the defence that these appellants were implicated on account of po-
litical rivalry.

Medical Evidence:

PW-17 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased
G found a lacerated wound on the chest just left to the mid-line at the level
of nipple over the third. fourth and fifth inter-costal space. The wound
was slightly oval shaped measuring 1-1/2" x 2" deep and opening into
thoraic cavity. The surrounding skin was ecchymost, but no tattooing of
gun powder was noticed. The wonnd as described by the Doctor is a slit
like small lacerated wound on the medial end of clavicle. On infernal
H exan1ination PW-17 he found com111inuted fracture ofsternu1n and second,
C.M. TIWARI '"STATE f PANDIAN, J.J 333
' _, third ribs of left side chest. There· was a punctured wound on the medial A
border of left lung near its appex. He found one rounded pellet (which has
been recorded as bullet, but has been clarified in the further chief exarni-
nation as pellet which receives support from the evidence of PW-19, the
ballistic expert) in the left cavity of the chest, embedded in the posterior
wall of chest at scapular region at the level of second and third ribs. The
Medical Officer is of the opinion that the death was due to severe fatal B
injuries to vital organs like. left lung and heart resulting in profuse bleed-
ing and shock. PW-19 after examining the two pellets a11d two wads
marked as Ex.Pl and P-2 ru1d WI and W2 respectively gave his opinion
tbat the holes, found on the. saree, chader (bed-sheet)' and the blouse were
gun shot holes and there was presence of blackening surrounding the holes
on the chader and that the distance of firing should have been within one c
yard.

The evidence of the Medical Officer .(PW-17) and of the Ballistic
expert (PW-19) amply corroborates the testimony of PWs 5 and 6 that the
assailants whomsoever they had . been should have entered into the. room
and shot at the victim standing within a. close range. D
Mr. Mulla advanced an argument that the recovery of the two pellets
and two wads from the scene place is an indicative ·of the fact that there
would have been two shots, and that the presence .of only one injury :on
the body of the de~eased as per the evidence of PW-17 falsifies the
present prosecution case that the victim was shot at only once. E

The presence of .the pellets and two wads, of cour.se, indicate that
there ought to have been two shots, but it does not necessarily follow that
both the shots, should have hit the victim, probably one of the shots must
have missed the target. From the mere absence of two injtiries on the body
of the deceased, no conclusion would be arrived at that the entire prosecu- F
1-< tion case is liable to be rejected. The further submission of the teamed
counsel that the appellants should not have come at the odd hours antici-
paling that the main door of the house would have been kept open does
not appeal to us. Probably, the appellants who came there with the inten-
tion of putting an end to the life of the victim by any other design should
have taken this opportunity to enter into the house and shot at the de- G
ceased.

Lastly a feeble argument was put forth by the defence stating 'that
the father of the deceased and other inmates of the house on being ag-
-f..- grieved at the conduct of the victim should have put an end to the life of
the girl by conspiring together. This submission has to be mentioned for H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A simply rejecting the same because had the father and other inmates of the r ~-
house had already conspired .to murder the girl, they would not have
waited for such a long time and ultimately killed her by shooting at her
chest. No father, however grave be the provocation at the hands. of his
daughter would resort, in the nonnal course to kill his daughter or partici-
pate in any conspiracy 'o murder her. Moreover, there is no circumstance
B in the present case even feebly or remotely indicating that the inmates of
the house were responsible for the cause of the death of the deceased .

. In the spite of our best efforts and great deal of pondering over the
matter. we find absolutely no reason, much less compelling reason to
disagree with the conclusion of the High Court since the organic synthesis [
C of the events, circumstances and facts of the case lead only to one conclu-
sion, namely, that the prosecution has established that this preplanned
and cold blooded murder, executed in very cowardly and· dastardly man-
ner at a helpless and defenceless young girl was perpetrated by the appel-
lants.

D We, quite apart from the reason of the High Court, even on our
independent assessment and evaluations of the evidence hold that the
finding of the Trial Court is not reasonably sustainable and that the pros-
ecution has satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused beyond any
shadow of doubt and consequently the judgment of the High Court does
not call for any interfere'\Ce. ·
E.
Jn the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is affinned
and the appeal is dismissed.

T.N.A. · Appeal dismissed.

rt

.~ '