Holding

The High Court's interference with the acquittal was unjustified; an appellate court cannot overturn a trial court's acquittal where the evidence admits two reasonable interpretations.

Summary

The appellants Jagdish, Devidayal, Mangoo and Thakurdas were charged with murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 for the death of Mansingh. The trial court acquitted them, finding contradictions in prosecution witnesses and noting that medical evidence did not support the ocular testimony regarding injuries on the back of the deceased. The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the accused, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with a judgment of acquittal where two reasonable views of the evidence were possible. The Court emphasized that an appellate court may re‑appreciate evidence only when the record leads to a single conclusion of guilt and must give reasons for deviating from the trial court’s reasoning. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the acquittal and ordered the release of the appellants.

Issues considered

The scope of appellate jurisdiction to interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Whether the High Court correctly re‑appreciated the evidence and departed from the trial court's reasoning.
Whether the benefit of doubt and presumption of innocence preclude reversal when the trial court's view is reasonable.
Whether medical evidence contradicts ocular evidence sufficiently to overturn the acquittal.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murderIPC 302Section 34acquittalappellate jurisdictionbenefit of doubtre‑appreciation of evidencemedical evidence vs ocular evidence

Judgment

i

A JAGDISH AND ANK -f-

v.
STATE OF MADRYA PRADESH

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.)

Penal Code, J860; S. 302 rlw S. 34: -!~

Murder-Four accu~ed persons armed with weapons allegedly attacked
c deceased causing his death-Trial Court acquitted all of them giving benefit
of doubt-Reversed by High Court-On appeal, Held: High Court, while
dealing with a judgment of acquittal, although could. re-appreciate the
material· brought on record, but it could not ordinarily interfere with the
judgment of acquittal when two views arepossible-High Court's jurisdiction
D to interfere with the order of acquittal permissible only when the material
on record would lead to only one conclusion that appellant is guilty and it
requires to meet the reasoning of the trial Court-Jn the present case, High
Court proceeded on the premise that the approach of the trial Couri was
negative as it discussed only the inconsistencies in the evidence ofprosecution
witnesses-The view taken by the High Court is not acceptable since no
E reasons assigned for taking such a view-Jn the facts and circumstances of
the case, High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of
acquittal-Jurisdiction of High Court-Re-appreciation of evidence.

Complainant, PWI, lodged an FIR alleging that on the fateful day, when
he along with his nephews went to the house of one 'G' for borrowing his
F bullock cart to carry bricks, he asked them to take it from 'Reda' of one 'B' ~-

and asked his son to accompany them up to the said place. When they reached
the place, the accused persons armed with weapons came out of their houses
and threatened them of dire consequences. On seeing the complainant, his
nephew and another, one of the accused allegedly hit one of his nephews, the
G deceased, on his neck as a result whereof he fell down resulting in a big
wound. Other accused persons also inflicted injuries on his back and neck.
The accused, after inflicting injuries on the deceased, ran away. The victim
succumbed to the injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the ...\'-1'_

Police. Trial Court, on the basis of the medical evidence vis-a-vis the ocular

H 1082
T

JAG DISH v. STATE 1083
evidence, opined that participation of three of the accused was doubtful and A
found contradiction in the statements of PW-2; that in view of the contradictory
statements made by the prosecution witnesses in the court, vis-a-vis the
prosecution story as divulged in the First Information Report, it was doubtful
as to whether the appellants had caused any injury on the deceased; and that
the sequence of the event in which the assaults were said to have been caused B
was also doubtful being contradictory and inconsistent. Trial Court acquitted
all the accused persons. Appeal filed by the State was allowed by the High
Court convicting the accused for alleged commission of offence punishable
u/s.302 r/w S.34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life. Hence the present appeal.
c
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The High Court while dealing with an appeal from a judgment
of acquittal was required to meet the reasonings of the Trial Judge. There
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that irrespective of the fact that the High Court
was dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it was open to it to re-appreciate the D
materials brought on records by the parties, but it i~ a well-settled principle
of law that where two views are possible, the High Court would not ordinarily
interfere with the judgment of acquittal. [Para 12) (1087-F, G)

Rattan Lal v. State ofJammu & Kashmir, (2007) 5 SCALE 472, relied
on. E

1.2. The High Court's jurisdiction to interfere in such a matter is
permissible in law provided the materials on records lead to only one
conclusion that the appellants arc guilty. The High Court in its impugned
judgment had almost reproduced the First Information Report as also the F
depositions of the prosecution witnesses. It did not make any endeavour to
analY7J! the evidence independently. It proceeded on the basis that the approach
of the Trial Court was negative. According to the High Court, as the Trial
Court had discussed in detail only the inconsistencies in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the same should not be accepted. Why a different view
should be taken has not been spelt out. The High Court appears to have G
proceeded on the premise that the depositions of the eye-witnesses (PW-1) as
also other witnesses corroborate the prosecution story, the prosecution case
cannot be thrown out. (Para 13] (1088-A-CI

1.3. It is unfortunate that the High Court while arriving at the
aforementioned conclusion did not pose unto itself the right question. In the H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A event, it intended to arrive at a finding different from the one arrived at by the
Trial Court, it was obligatory on its part to analyze thr. materials on record
independently. The High Court was also required to meet the reasoning of
the Trial Judge. If the Trial Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, arrived
at a conclusion that the time of occurrence disclosed in the First Information
Report was not correct inasmuch whereas the occurrence is said to have taken
B place at 08.00 a.m. but in fact it took place much prior thereto, it could not be
opined that the First Information Report was lodged within an hour of the
incident. The deposition of one of the accused as also other prosecution
witnesses should have been subjected to a deeper analysis by the High Court
ke~ping in view the fact that such an exercise had been resorted by the trial
C Court. The High Court also committed a serious illegality insofar as it
inferred that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence. Evidently·
it did not. It is a case where the High Court should not have interfered with
the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
(Paras 14 and 151 (1088-C-F)

D State of Rajasthan v. Bhawar Singh, (2004) 13 SCC 147; Kallu alias
Masih and Ors. v. State of MP., [2006] 10 SCC 313 and Ramappa Halappa
Pi.jar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 6 SCALE 206, relied on.
•
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 988 of
2006.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.2006 of the High Court of
Madhya Paradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of
1991.

Dr. T.N. Singh, Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Dr. Kailash Chand for the
F Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Appellants herein, who are two in number, have filed
this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order
G dated 23.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur,
Gwalior Bench at Gwalior, whereby the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.1990
passed by the learned Session Judge, Datia, in S.T. No. 38 of 1987 was set
aside convicting them for alleged commission of an offence p~mishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo
H rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,00u/-.
r-

JAGDISH v. STATE [SINHA, J.] 1085
2. A First Information Report was lodged by one Mangat Singh (PW- A
I) alleging that at about'8.00 A.M. on 27.09.1987 he along with his nephew
Gabbar Singh and another nephew Mansingh (deceased) went to the house
of one Govindas Kurmi for borrowing his bullock cart to carry bricks. They
were informed that the same was in the 'Beda' of Birjoo. He asked his son to
accompany them up to the said place. While the cart was being led and they
reached near the house of Man goo Kurmi, they found him armed with ballam, B
Thakurdas armed with axe, Jagdish armed with axe and Devidayal armed with
pharsa, were standing at the Chabootra of their house. All the four of them
started abusing them saying that they would finish the deceased finally that
day. Thakurdas allegedly hit the deceased Mansingh on his neck as a result
whereof he fell down. He allegedly again inflicted another blow on his neck C
causing a big wound. Jagdish inflicted an axe blow on the his back. Devidayal
inflicted a pharsa blow on the neck of the deceased and Mangoo inflicted a
ballam blow on his back. They inflicted two or three more blows on the back
of the deceased, whereafter they ran away.

3. Appellants, thus, along with Thakurdas and Mangoo were tried for D
commission of the murder of Mansingh. Before the learned Trial Judge the
prosecution in support of its case, inter alia, examined Mangat Singh,
(informant) as PW-I, Kailash and Dabbu, who are said to be eye-witnesses,
as PW-2 and PW-4 respectively.

4. The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution witnesses. The E
defence of the appellants in the case was that the deceased Mansingh was
not a man of good character. He had many enemies. He had also strained
relations with one Pragi Choudhari. He had taken the wood of Pragi and
grabbed the land of Lal Singh. He had also shot at Bhagirath and had
assaulted one Lalloo and committed a theft. He, therefore, might have been F
murdered by any one of them.

5. Appellant examined one Brijnandan as DW-1. According to the said
witness on the date of incident at about 4 and 5 a.m. when he was going for
easing himself in the morning, he saw the dead body of Mansingh lying near
the well and Thkurdas was with him: In the meantime, Kailash had also G
arrived. He, thereafter, asked Thakurdas to call Mangat Singh, brother of the
deceased. According to him, Mangat Singh had stated that the deceased had
inimical relations with many persons, and one of them might have killed him.
The police later on arrived and had questioned him.

H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R.

A 6. Before the learned Trial Judge, Dr. R.N. Gupta, who conducted the -.:,
autopsy, examined himself as PW-3. According to him; on post-mortem of the
dead body he found the following external injuries :

"I. One incised ~blique wound on the rt. side of the neck size 3 x Y2"

2. Another incised oblique wound I" above the aforesaid wound 2.5
B x Y:z"
3. Wound, size 3.5 x-ray I" towards backside on the neck.

4. Wound, size 3 x Y:z" It. side of neck.
5. Wound, size 3 x I" Lt. side of neck.
c
All wound were on the neck sufficiently deep due to which
respiratory canal, oesophagus food canal, blood vessels and bones
were cut. Blood clotted all four sides of wound, and margins were
contracted.

D 6. One incised wound on the back side of neck in the middle of both
the shoulders 3 x I" size (original copy of witness No. 3 is un-
illegible).
7. One incised wound over the It. shoulder 2 x Y:z". Face turned pale,
eyes closed because of blood spots. Mouth was little open"
E 7. The said post-mortem examination was held on 27 .6.1987. According
to the doctor, there was no injury on the back of Mansingh and all the seven
injuries were possible to be inflicted by only one weapon. When two axes and
one pharsa, which were said to be the weapons of offence, were produced
before him, he opined that having regard to the size of the injuries, the same
F could have been caused with an axe but could not have been caused with
a pharsa.

8. It is not in dispute that the aforementioned Birjoo was admittedly a
witness whose name was shown in the charge-sheet, but the prosecution did
not examine him.
G
9. The learned Session Judge analyzed the evidence of two witnesses
and arrived at the conclusion that the medical evidence does not support the
ocular evidence. It was found that Devidayal allegedly had given a pharsa
blow and Jagdish was alleged to have given a blow on the back of Mansingh
but no injury was found on the back of the deceased nor any axe or ballam
H injury was found on his back. No penetrating wound of ballam or lathi was
r-

JAGDISH v. STATE [SINHA,J.] 1087
found at all on the deceased. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the A
participation of the Mangoo, Jagdish and Devidayal was doubtful. It was
further opined that Jagdish was alleged to have given two-three axe blows
on the back of the deceased, whereas Devidayal had given two-three phrasa
blows on his back and Jagdish was said to have given two-three luhangi
blows; but that evidence also stood belied by medical evidence.
B
10. The learned Trial Judge also noticed that PW-2 contradicted himself
insofar as he stated that at the time of incident he was at his well, which is
about 8 to 10 furlongs away from the house of Mangoo Kurmi. According to
him after getting up from his bed, he used to go straight to his well. He had
furthermore accepted that he had come to his well at about 4 and 5 a.m. in C
the morning and at that time he found the dead body of Mansingh lying there.
The said fact finds support from the statement of Dabbu (PW-4) and was was
also supported by the defence story, as disclosed by Brijnandan (DW-1).

11. It is interesting to note that the aforementioned prosecution witnesses
were not declared hostile. Whereas at one place of the deposition, PW-4 D
stated that he had been a witness to the assault by the accused persons upon
r the deceased, in his cross-examination, he accepted that when he reached the
place of occurrence he had found the dead body lying there. It had also been
found by the learned Trial Judge that whereas no injury caused by axe or
ballam on the back of the deceased was found, according to the prosecution
witnesses, accused Mangal Singh, Jagdish and Devidayal had inflicted ballam, E
lathi or axe blows on his back. It was found by the learned Trial Judge that
keeping in view the contradictory statements made by the prosecution
witnesses in court, vis-a-vis the prosecution story as divulged in the First
Infonnation Report, it was doubtful as to whether the appellants had caused
any injury on the deceased. It had further been found that the sequence of F
the event in which the assaults were said to have been caused was also
doubtful being contradictory and inconsistent.

12. The High Court while dealing with an appeal from a judgment of.-
acquittal was, thus, required to meet the aforementioned reasonings of the
learned Trial Judge. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that irrespective G
of the fact that the High Court was dealing with a judgment of acquittal, it
was open to it to re-appreciate the materials brought ·on records by the
...i. parties, but it is a well-settled principle of law that where two views are
possible, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of
acquittal. [See Rattan Lal v. State ofJammu & Kashmir, (2007) 5 SCALE 472]. H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A 13. The High Court's jurisdiction to interfere in such a matter is .,:_
permissible in law provided the materials on records lead to only one conclusion
that the appellants are guilty. The High Court in its impugned judgment had
almost reproduced the First Information Report as also the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses. It did not make any endeavour to analyze the evidence
B independently. It proceeded on the basis that the approach of the Trial Court
was negative. According to the High Court, as the Trial Court had discussed
in details only the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
the same should not be accepted. Why a different view should be taken has
not been spelt out. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the premise
that the depositions of the eye-witnesses, namely, Mangat Singh (PW-I) as
C also other witnesses corroborate the prosecution story, the prosecution case
cannot be thrown out.

14. It is unfortunate that. the High Court while arriving at the
aforementioned conclusion did not pose unto itself the right question. In the
event, it intended to arrive at a finding different from the one arrived at by
D the Trial Court, it was obligatory on its part to analyze the materials on record
independently. The High Court was also required to meet the reasoning of the
learned Trial Judge. If the learned Trial Judge upon appreciation of the
evidence arrived at a conclusion that the time of occurrence disclosed in the
First Information Report was not correct inasmuch whereas the occurrence is
E said to have taken place at 08.00 a.m. but in fact it took place much prior
thereto, it could not be opined that the First Information Report was lodged
within an hour of the incident. The deposition of Man gal Singh as also other
prosecution witnesses should have been subjected to a deeper analysis by
the High Court keeping in view the fact that such an exercise had been
resorted by the learned Session Judge. The High Court also committed a
F serious illegality insofar as it inferred that the medical evidence corroborated
the ocular evidence. Evidently it did not.

15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is a case where the High
Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal passed by
the learned Trial Judge.
G
16. In State ofRajasthan v. BhawarSingh, [2004] 13 SCC 147, this Court
has held :
+
"6. We find that the High Court has carefully analysed the factual
position. Though, individually some of the circumstances may not
H
JAGDISH v. STATE [SINHA, J.] 1089
have affected veracity of the prosecution version, the combined effect . A
of the infirmities noticed by the High Court is sufficient to show t.'1at
the prosecution case has not been established. The presence of PWs.
3, 4 and 8 at the alleged spot of incident has been rightly considered
doubtful in view of the categorical statement of PW-5, the widow that
she sent for these persons to go and find the body of her husband.
It is quite unnatural that PWs. 3, 4 and 8 remained silent after witnessing B
the assaults. They have not given any explanation as to what they
did after witnessing the assault on the deceased. Additionally, the
unexplained delay of more than one day in lodging the FIR casts
serious doubt on the truthfulness of prosecution version. The mere
delay in lodging· the, FIR may not prove fatal in all cases. But on the C
circumstances of the present case, certainly, it is one of the factors
which corrodes credibility of the prosecution version. Finally, the
medical evidence was at total variance with the ocular evidence.
Though ocular evidence has to be given importance over medical
evidence, where the medical evidence totally improbablises the ocular
version that can be taken to be a factor to affect credibility of the D
prosecution version. The view taken by the High Court is a possible
view. The appeal being one against acquittal, we do not consider this
to be a fit case where any interference is called for. The appeal fails
and is dismissed."

17. Yet again in Kallu alias Masih and Ors. v. State of MP., [2006) l 0
E
SCC 313, this Court opined :

"8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the
Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing
appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists F
to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is
that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate
court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and
the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the
decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible.
The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption G
of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to
get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should
assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."

[See also Rattan/al (supra) and Ramappa Halappa Pujar & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 6 SCALE 206]. H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A 18. For the reasons aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court
cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. "'·
The appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with
any other case.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed.
B