Holding

The High Court’s acquittal was justified as the prosecution failed to examine essential witnesses and the evidence was insufficient to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh alleged that a gang of six persons assembled in a grove to commit dacoity and were arrested after a police operation that recovered unlicensed firearms. The trial court convicted them under IPC sections 399 and 402 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, relying on the testimony of two police witnesses. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to examine the Station Officer and the Assistant Sub‑Inspector, and that there were material discrepancies in the key witnesses' statements. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s reasons were sufficient to uphold the acquittal and whether any glaring infirmity existed in its appreciation of evidence. It concluded that the High Court had properly considered the entire record, drew a justified adverse inference from the non‑examination of crucial witnesses, and that the evidence did not meet the burden of proof; therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The prosecution’s failure to examine the Station Officer and the Assistant Sub‑Inspector and its impact on the evidentiary assessment.
Whether the discrepancies in the testimony of the two police witnesses warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Whether the High Court’s acquittal is perverse, arbitrary, or vitiated by a glaring infirmity, justifying Supreme Court interference under Article 136.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 374, s. 386
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 399, s. 402

Subjects

assembly for dacoitynon‑examination of witnessesadverse inferenceappellate jurisdictionArticle 136evidence discrepanciesconviction vs acquittal

Judgment

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 85

STATE OF U.P. A
v.
PUNNI AND ORS.
(Crl. A. No. 463 of 2001)
JANUARY 4, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]

:- Penal Code, ·1860: ss. 399 and 402 - Assembling for
purpose of committing dacoity - On information received,
police party reached the site with villagers -Arrest of 6 persons c
- Recovery of unlicenced firearms, cartridges, and other
weapons from them - Conviction by trial court under ss.399
and 402 and s.27 of Arms Act - Acquittal by High Court on
grounds of discrepancies in evidence of witnesses and non-
examination of relevant witnesses and fact that accused were
D
caught without resistance from their side - On appeal, Held:
Order of High Court was on consideration of entire material
on record and evidence adduced - Thus, no interference
warranted in exercise of power under Art. 136 of Constitution -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Arms Act, 1959 -
s.27. E

Evidence: Discrepanqies in evidence of witnesses - Non-
examination of relevant witnesses - Effect of-· Criminal Trial.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.374 and 386 -
Appeal against conviction - Interference by'High Court - F
j
Scope of.
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136-Acquittal by High
Court - Scope of interference.
The prosecution case was that on receiving the G
information regarding assembly of a gang of dacoits in a
certain grove in order to commit dacoity, the police party
including the Station Officer and an A.S.I. along with some
viitagers reached the said place. While they were waiting
85 -....: H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A there, some persons entered the grove. From their >
conversation, the police party and the witnesses were said
to have been convinced that the assembled persons were
dacoits and had assembled there to commit dacoity. The
S.O. then commanded them to surrender their weapons.
B A V.L.P. shot was fired by the police, whereupon these
persons started running away. The police party arrested
6 persons while 3 managed to escape. The arrested
persons were questioned and they revealed their names
to the police. On search, unlicenced firearms, live
cartridges and some other weapons were recovered from
c their possession. The chik report was prepared in
accordance with the directions given by the S.O. and a
case under ss.399 and 402 IPC was registered against
the accused. Before the trial court, the stand of the
accused was that they were falsely implicated in the case;
D that the witnesses and Thakurs took ·~egar' from them
and when they declined they were falsely implicated in
connivance with the police.
The trial' court, relying on the evidence of the two
E prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1, the ASI and PW-2,
convicted the six accused for the offences under ss. 399
and 402 IPC and s. 27 of the Arms Act. On appeal, the High
Court acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence the
present appeal.
F· Dismissing the appeal, the Court .....

HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in setting aside
the order of conviction and passing an order of acquittal
in appeal. While doing so, the High Court has given due
reasons after considering the entire materials and the
G evidence on record. It has also given reasons as to why
the non-examination of the S.O. and the 1.0. was fatal in
the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court
was justified in holding that it was necessary for the
prosecution to prove the case made out under ss.399 and
H 402 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and to examine the
STATE OF U.P. v. PUNNI AND ORS. 87

S.O. and the 1.0. for unfolding the prosecution story. The A
High Court correctly held that the evidence of PW 1 and
PW 2, on which strong reliance was placed by the trial
court in order to pass the order of conviction, could not
be relied upon. [Para 8) [94-F-H, 95-A]
Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad AIR (1954) 8
SC 51; Ram Prasad & Ors. v. State of U.P. 1974 (3) SCC 388
- referred to.
\
2. The High Court was also justified in drawing an
adverse inference against the prosecution as it had failed c
to examine the adjoining grove holders or land holders
who were said to have been present in the grove at the
time of occurrence. That apart, as was rightly pointed out
by the High Court, the accused were caught on the spot
without any resistance or struggle from their side. It is also
D
evident that the High Court had found discrepancies in
the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of PW
'v 1 as to the time of his departure from the Police station
and also as to the fact of his leaving the station with the
S.O. [Para 9) [96-F-H]
E
Kashiram and Ors. v. State of M.P. (2002) 1 SCC 71;
Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani and Anr. v. State of Kera/a
(2004) 9 sec 193 - held inapplicable.
3.1. This Court, while dealing with the order of
.. j acquittal of the High Court, would not ordinarily interfere F
with the findings of the High Court unless it is satisfied
that such finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in
the appraisement of evidence or such finding was
perverse or arbitrary. [Paras 11] [98-G]
• G
State of U.P. v. Harihar Bux Singh AIR (1974) SC 1890;
State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh (1995) 2 SCC 486; State of
U.P. v. Babu/ Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 - relied on.
3.2. The High Court was justified in its reasons while
setting aside the order of conviction, on the question of H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A non-examination of the S.O. who was the architect of the
facts of the case. In view of the non-examination of the
S.O. and the 1.0. and also in view of the glaring
discrepancies pointed out by High Court, it rightly held
that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and on
B the evidence on record, the order of acquittal was
reasonably possible to arrive at. Therefore, there is no
reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal in the
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution. [Paras 9] [96-A-D]
C CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 463 of 2001.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.5.1999 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. A. No. 2921/
D 1980.
Pramod Swarup, Praveen Swarup, Reena Singh and
Anuvrat Sharma for the Appellants
Rana Ranjit Singh, Manish Vashishtha, Prakash Kumar
E and S.K. Sinha for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. This is an appeal against
the judgment and order dated 21st of May, 1999 passed by the
learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
F Criminal Appeal No.2921 of 1980 whereby the High Court had
allowed the appeal of the accused/respondents and set aside
the judgment and order dated 29th of November, 1980 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah in Sessions
Trial No.406 of 1978 (State of U.P. vs. Punni and 5 others)
G convicting the accused/respondents of the offences under
Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the
IPC") and sentencing each one of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 4 years and 2 years respectively
and further convicting each one of them under Section 27 of the
H Arms Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment
STATE OF U.P. v. PUNNI AND ORS. 89
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
,( - for a period of 6 months. However, all the aforesaid sentences A
were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may
be narrated, in a nutshell, which are as follows: -
3. The case of the prosecution, inter alia, was that on 15th B
of October, 1977, one Ram Charan Singh, Station Officer (S.O.)

. - Police Station Sikanderpur Vaish, Assistant Sub-Inspector
(A.S.I.) Gaya Prasad along with constables Bhanwar Singh,
Lakhan Singh, Mulaim Singh, Dina Nath, Jamuna Prasad,
Rajendera Singh and Head Constable Hajari Singh were c
returning to the Police Station from the Patrol duty. When they
reached near village Nagla Abdal at about 8 p.m., a reliable
informer notified the S.O. Ram Charan Singh that the gang of
.Punni Habda shall assemble in the grove of Pandit Lakhan
Singh of Rani Darner at about 1:00 aru to commit dacoity and
D
would loot Nagla Karan. On receiving this information, the S.O.
and the AS.I. had called for two witnesses, namely, Nakdey and
~· Sri Pal from village Nag la Abdal and also procured their licenced
firearms through Constable Bhanwar Singh. Thereafter, they
came to village Rani Darner wherefrom witnesses, namely,
Ranvir, Ram Prakash, Deo Singh and Soran were also taken E
with them. Out of these witnesses, Ram Prakash (PW 2) was
carrying his licensed gun. Thereafter, all of them came to the
Madha of Pradhan in village Rani Darner where the witnesses
were told the purpose of calling them and the necessary
instructions pertaining to dacoity prevention scheme were given. F
J
A search was also made on all the persons present to ensure
that none possessed any illegal weapons. Thereafter, two parties
were formed by the S.O., one in hi~ leadership, which comprised
Ram Prakash (PW 2) and the other in the leadership of Gaya
Prasad, A.S.I. (PW 1). At 11.00 p.m., the two parties had G
reached near the grove of Pandit Lakhan Singh. The party
headed by the S.O. positioned themselves on the north of the
grove while the other party positioned on the east of the grove.
While they were waiting there, some persons entered the grove
and started conversing and smoking Biri and cigarette. One of H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A them was over heard saying "Nag la chhota hi hai. Ustad nahin
aaye hain. Darney ki koyee bat nahin hai. Chalo Chalkar loot
lengey." On hearing this conversation, the S.O. and the.witnesses
were convinced that the assembled persons were a gang of
dacoits and that they had assembled there to commit dacoity.
B The S.O. then challenged the dacoits telling them that they were
under siege and commanded them to surrender their weapons,
lest they would be done to death. A V.L.P. shot was fired by the
Head Constable, whereupon these persons started to run away
from that site. The police party arrested 6 persons while 3
C managed to escape. The arrested persons were questioned
and they revealed their names to the police. On search being
taken, one gun and 8 live cartridges were recovered from Punni,
one Tamancha and 4 live cartridges were recovered from
Munshi, one Tamancha and 5 live cartridges and one torch were
recovered from Saligram, one Tamancha and 3 live cartridges
D were recovered from Sultan, one Shala and a torch were
recovered from Ram Murti, all without licence, and a Bamboo
lathi was recovered from Ram Bharose. The empty V.L.P. shot,
half burnt pieces of Biris and match sticks were also collected.
The recovery memos were prepared on the spot and the
E collected articles were sealed in separate bundles. Thereafter,
the police party returned to the Police Station alongwith the
accused and the recovered articles. On 161h of October, 1977,
a chik report was prepared in accordance with the dictation
given by the S.O. and a case was registered under Sections
F 399 and 402 of the IPC and separate cases were registered
under Sections 25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act. The investigation
was completed and the charge sheets were prepared and
submitted to the concerned Magistrate who had committed the
case to the Court of Sessions.
G 4. The accused/respondents after appearance pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was contended by the
accused/respondents that they were falsely implicated in the
case. The witnesses and Thakurs took Segar from them and
when they declined to comply with their demand, they connived
H with the police to implicate them. The witnesses were the Dalals
STATE OF U.P. v. PUNNI AND ORS. 91
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
of the Police and the Police had enmity against them. The main A
ground of attack of the accused/respondents was the non-
examination of the S.O., which, according to them, was fatal.
No injuries were caused to the police party and therefore, the
case was not probable. The respondent, Ram Bharosey, was
examined as a witnes's and he sought to show that he was not B
on good terms with the co-accused Munshi and one Ram
Chadra who was the brother of another co-accused Ram Murti.
In order to show enmity, certified copies of some police FIRs
were submitted by Ram Bharosey. Thus, it was highly
improbable for him to form a gang with them to commit dacoity. c
Therefore, according to the respondents, they were falsely
implicated in the case and they should have been acquitted.
5. The Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah
relying on the evidence of the two witnesses, namely, PW1 and
PW2 and after rejecting the testimony of the accused Ram· D
Bharosey convicted the six accused for the offences under
Sections 399 & 402 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and
sentenced them in the manner indicated herein earlier. Feeling
aggrieved by the said decision of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Vlth Court at Etah, an appeal was preferred by the E
accused/respondents which, by the impugned order was
allowed and the said judgment of the Additional Sessions ·
Judge, Vlth Court at Etah was set aside. It is this order of the
. High Court, which is impugned in this appeal.
J 6. Since this is a case where the High Court acquitted the F
accused/respondents thereby setting aside the order of
conviction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah,
it would be appropriate to consider the findings arrived at by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah as well as by•
the High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at G
Etah convicted the accused/respondents, inter alia, on the
following findings: -
(i) On each broad and important aspect of the case,
the two witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 had given cogent
H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A evidence proving the case and that their testimonies "\
fully answered the test of credibility.
(ii) PW 2 Ram Prakash had no reason to give false
evidence against the accused.

B (iii) The accused were arrested on the spot and there
was nothing to show that they were arrested from
their houses.
(iv) The properties were recovered from their possession
.,
and the V.L.P. shot was fired.
c (v) PW 1 and the S.O Ram Charan Singh were present
throughout and the examination of the S.O. would
not have brought any improvement.
(vi) The accused had only country lethal weapons and if
D their weapons could not be put to use, the case of
the prosecution could not be thrown out.
(vii) The accused Ram Bharosey did not deny the charges
after entering the witness box. "

E (viii) The defence could not point out any infirmity in the
prosecution case and the case stood fully proved
beyond doubt.
On the aforesaid findings made by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah, the accused/
F respondents were convicted under sections 399 and
).
402 of the IPC and also under section 27 of the Arms
Act.
The High Court, as mentioned herein earlier, had set aside
the conviction on appeal. While setting aside the conviction,
G the High Court, inter alia, recorded the following findings: -

(i) The S.O. Ram Charan Singh was not examined,
although the FIR of the case was dictated by him.
(ii) The 1.0. of the case was also not examined at the
H trial.
STATE OF U.P. v. PUN(\jl AND ORS. 93 r
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

(iii) None of the adjoining grove holders or land holders A
were said to have been present in the grove at the
time of occurrence although the site plan prepared
by the investigating officer shows that the grove of
Lakhan Singh was surrounded on three sides by
groves. B
(iv) The accused/respondents were said to have been
caught on the spot without any resistance or struggle
on their part.
(v) There were discrepancies in the examination-in-chief c
and cross examination of PW 1 as to the time of his
departure from the police station and also as to the
fact of his leaving the station with SO Ram Charan
Singh.
(vi) There were contradictions in the testimony of PW 1 D
and the FIR as to the fact of their leaving the police
'•' station alone or with others.
(vii) The S.O. had claimed in the FIR that an informer had
given the information that dacoity would be committed E
in Nag la Karan at 3 am but PW 1 did not testify to the
giving of any such information by the informer.
(viii) There were contradictions in the cross examination
of PW 1 and the medical evidence as to the fact of
receiving of danda blows on the body of the accused. F
(ix) There appeared substance in the defence plea that
the accused Ram Bharosey could not have joined
hands with Munshi and Ram Murti for committing
dacoity on accpunt of their enmity. G
The High Court thus concluded that all these circumstances
tended to show that the accused had been bundled together by
the police and implicated in the case of assembly and
preparation to commit dacoity.
H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A 7. Before we consider whether the High Court was justified
in reversing the or~er of conviction of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Vlth Court at Etah, and passing an order of acquittal in
appeal, we may briefly highlight the issues raised before us.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court
B had erred in taking the adverse view on account of non-
examination of the 1.0. whentheA.S.I. Gaya Prasad had adduced
the entire sequence of events in a natural and convincing
manner. He also sought to argue that the reasons of acquittal 41
recorded by the High Court were erroneous and against the
c weight of the evidence proved on record. On the other hand, the
learned counsel for the accused/respondents sought to argue
that the High Court, while acquitting the accused and reversing
the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at
Etah, who convicted them, had taken into consideration all the
aspects of the matter and the evidence on record and came to
D
a conclusion that the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge
could not be accepted, after giving proper and cogent reasons
for the same. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the accused/ ./
respondents sought for dismissal of the appeal by this Court.
E 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after examining the submissions made by them and also the
judgment of the High Court as well as ·of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Vlth Court at Etah and the other materials on record,
including the findings and the reasoning given by the Additional
F Sessions Judge as well as the High Court, we do not find any
ground to hold that the High Court was not justified in setting L
aside the order of conviction and passing an order of acquittal
in appeal. While doing so, the High Court had given due reasons
after considering the entire materials and the evidence on record
and had also given the reasons as to why the non-examination
G
of the S.O. and the 1.0. was fatal in the facts and circumstances
of the case. In our view, the High Court was justified in holding
that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the case made
out under Section 299 and 402 of the IPC beyond reasonable
doubt and to examine the S.O. and the 1.0. for unfolding the
H
STATE OF U.P. v. PUNNI AND ORS. 95
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

prosecution story. The High Court had also given its reasons, in A
our view, correctly, that the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 on which,
strong reliance was placed by the Additional Sessions Judge
' in order to pass an order of conviction could not be relied upon.
On the question of non-examination of the S.O. and the 1.0.,
which led to an adverse inference being drawn by the High Court B
against the prosecution, the fact that the same was fatal would
also be clear from a decision of this court in the case of Habeeb
....'• Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad_[AIR 1954 SC 51] in which
this Court at paragraph 11 observed as follows: -
"It is said that the state of things above described arose c
because of a supposed obligation on the prosecution to
call every available witness on the principle laid down in
such a case as Ram Ranjan Roy v. Emperor (l.L.R. 42
, Ca. 422.), to the effect that all available eye-witnesses
" should be called by the prosecution even though, as in D
the case cited, their names were on the list of defense

I
. witnesses. Their Lordships do not desire to lay down any
rules to fetter discretion on a matter such as this which
is so dependent on the particular circumstances of each
case. Still less do they desire to discourage the utmost E
candour and fairness on the part of those conducting
prosecutions; but at the same time they cannot, speaking
generally, approve bf an idea that a prosecution must
call witnesses irrespective of considerations of number

• and of reliability, or that a prosecution ought to discharge
the functions both of prosecution and defense. If it does
so confusion is very apt to result, and never is it more
F

likely to result than if the prosecution calls witnesses and
then proceeds almost automatically to discredit them by
cross-examination. Witnesses essential to the unfolding
G
of the narrative on which the prosecution is based, must,

•
~
of course, be called by the prosecution, whether in the
result the effect of their testimony is for or against the
case for the prosecution."
9. Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court in H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 1.S.C.R.

A the above-mentioned case, we, therefore, agree with the findings
and the reasoning of the High Court, while setting aside the
order of conviction, on the question of non-examination of the ,
S.O., who was the architect of the facts of the case. In Ram
Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of UP (1974 (3) SCC 388], this court
B has held that in case the court finds that the prosecution has not
examined the witnesses for reasons not tenable or not proper,
the court would be justified in drawing an adverse inference
1

against the prosecution. In view of the non-examination of the
S.O. and the 1.0. and also in view of the glaring discrepancies
c pointed out by the High Court in its judgment, as noted herein
earlier, we are, therefore, in agreement with the High Court that
in the facts and circumstances of the present case and on the
evidence on record, the order of acquittal was reasonably ,,
possible to arrive at and that being the position, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal in the
D
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
At the risk of repetition, we may also reiterate that the High Court,
after consideration of all the evidence and materials on record
had come to a conclusion of fact that the prosecution story as
made out to convict the accused/respondents under Sections
E 399 and 402 of the IPC could not at all be believed and therefore,
the order of conviction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth
Court at Etah was needed to be interfered with. There is one
further aspect of this matter. In our view, the High Court was
justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution
F as it had failed to examine the adjoining grove holders or land
holders who were said to have been present in the grove at the
time of occurrence. That apart, it was rightly pointed out by the
•
High Court that adverse inference ought to have been drawri
against the prosecution as admittedly, the persons who were
G caught on the spot were caught without any resistance or struggle
from their side. From the judgment' of the High Court, it is also
evident that the High Court had found discrepancies in the
examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of PW 1 as to
the time of his departure from the Police station and also as to
H the fac:t of his leaving the station with the S.O., ·Ram Charan
STATE OF U.P. v. PUNNI AND ORS. 97
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.)

r Singh. At this stage, we may further reiterate that the Additional A
Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah, while convicting the
accused/respondents had practically relied on the evidence of
PW 1, whose evidence, in fact, was rightly not accepted by the
High Court in view of the discrepancies found in his evidence.
Finally, in our view, the High Court, while reversing the order of B
conviction, had also noted other"'contradictions viz., vii, viii and
ix, as noted herein earlier, which, in our view, are material
,. contradictions which would lead to acquitting the accused/
respondents.

10. Before we part with our discussion on the findings of c
the High Court while setting aside the order of conviction of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah, we may note
that reliance was placed at the bar on the case of Kashiram
and others Vs. State of MP ((2002) 1 SCC 71). In that decision,
this court while considering the power of the High Court to D
interfere with an order of acquittal of the trial court held that when
~-
two views are possible, the High Court should not interfere only
y-
because it feels that sitting as a trial court, it would have
preferred conviction and that the High Court should consider
every reason given by the trial court in favour of an acquittal and E
then dislodge them. It was also held in that decision that while
deciding an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court
can reappraise the evidence, arrive at findings at variance with
those recorded by the trial court in its order of acquittal and
arrive at its own findings, yet, the salutary principle, which would F
guide the High Court is - if two views are reasonably possible,
one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction,
the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that
sitting as a trial court, its view would have been one of recording
a conviction. It was further held in that decision that as a
G
necessary corollary, it was obligatory on the High Court, while
reversing an order of acquittal, to consider and discuss each of

" the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and
then to dislodge those reasons and if the High Court failed to
discharge this obligation, it would constitute a serious infirmity
H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.

A in the judgment of the High Court. Reliance was also placed on ,# -

the decision of this court in Kunju Muhammed alias Khumani
and another Vs. State of Kerala_[(2004) 9 SCC 193) wherein
this court has held that the judgment of the trial court acquitting
the accused cannot be reversed by the High Court when the
B findings of the trial court were neither perverse nor they could
not be reached by a reasonable person and the view taken by
the trial court was the only possible view. However, in the present
case, we are not concerned with the situation, which had arisen "
in the aforesaid two decisions. In this case, the Additional • ;.-
c Sessions Judge, Vlth Court at Etah, convicted the accused/
respondents and such order of conviction was set aside in
appeal by the High Court. Therefore, in our view, the principles
laid down in the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the
facts of the present case although, from the aforesaid two
decisions, it is at least clear that while dealing with an appeal
D
under Section 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the salutary principle which would guide the High Court is - if
two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal .,
and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not
interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court, its
E view would have been one of recording a conviction. It was,
however, made clear in the aforesaid decisions by this court
that the High Court while hearing an appeal against an acquittal
has powers as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against
a conviction and while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the
F High Court can reappraise the evidence, arrive at findings at
variance with those recorded by the trial court in its order of
acquittal and arrive at its own findings.
1.1. In any view of the matter, we are of the view that this
Court, while dealing with the order of acquittal of the High Court,
,..
G
would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the High Court '
unless it is satisfied that such finding is vitiated by some g!aring
infirmity in the appraisement of evidence or such finding was
perverse or arbitrary. (See State of UP vs. Harihar Bux Singh
"
[AIR 1974 SC 1890). In S_tate of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh [(1995)
H
.'
STATE OF U.P. v. PUNNI AND ORS. 99
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.].

2 sec 486], this Court, on the same lines, held that ifthe order A
of acquittal was not perverse or palpably erroneous, this Court
would not interfere with such finding of the High Court acquitting
the accused/respondents from the offences charged against
them. While considering the scope of Article 136 of the
Constitution as to when this Court is entitled to interfere with an B
order of acquittal, this court obs~rved in State of UP vs. Babu/
Nath [(1994) 6 SCC 29] as follows:
"At the very outset we may mention that in an appeal
' under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court does not
normally reappraise the evidence by itself and go into C
the question of credibility of the witnesses and the
assessment' of the evidence by the High Court is
accepted by the Supreme Court as final unless, of course,
the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by
any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the D
principles of natural justice, errors of record and
misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of
the High Court are manifestly perverse and
unsupportable from the evidence on record."
In view of our discussions made herein above, we do not E
find any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court,
which on consideration of all the materials on record and the
evidence adduced by the parties had acquitted the accused/
respondents and therefore, no interference is warranted in the
exercise of our power under Article 136 of the Constitution. F

12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any reason
to interfere with the judgment of the High Court acquitting the
accused/respondents. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will
be no order as to costs.
G
Appeal dismissed