AHER MAYA VISA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 15-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
AHER MAY A VISA AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 378-Appeal against ac-
quittal-Interference by appellate Coun-Circumstances. 
The prosecution case was that the two deceased persons visited 
P.W .3 to mourn the death of her husband. They were staying with P.W.1, 
their relation, at P.W .3's village. 
On the morning of the date of occurrence, the deceased persons 
again went to the house of P.W .3 and after taking tea at her place, they left 
D for the bus stand. P.W.3 and her son (P.W.2) and daughter (P.W.4) 
accompanied the deceased persons to the bus stand, because P.W .3 and 
P.W .2 wanted to go with P.W.4 to the village, where P.W.4 was married. 
The deceased persons and P.Ws.3,4, and 2 travelled in the same bus 
and all got down at Borda bus stand at about 7.30 in the morning. As soon 
E as the bus left the bus stand, four accused persons (the appellants) came 
with axes and attacked the deceased persons by giving blows. Both the 
deceased persons expired on the spot. 
F 
P.W .3 requested her son (P.W .2) to go to the village of P.W.l to 
inform him. P.W.l was informed by P.W .2. P.W.l and P.W .2 came to place 
of occurrence. Thereafter P.W.l went to the Police Station and lodged the 
first information report at about 10 A.M. on the same day. 
P.W.13, Police Officer, Incharge of the Police Station, registered the 
offence and started the investigation. The appellants were committed to 
G Session Trial for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 
for causing death of the deceased persons. 
The Sessions Judge was of the view that in view of the custom 
prevalent in the Aber community, to which the eye witnesses belonged, 
P.W .3, who lost her husband only four days back was not to move out of 
H the house for about 1 1/4 months. The Sessions Judge also noted that the 
532 
AHER MAYA VISA v. STATE 
533 
injury on P.W .3 at the hands of the accused persons was not reported by A 
P.W .2 to P.W.1 and it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. The Sessions Judge 
by indicating him reasonings came to the finding that prosecution case 
suffered from various infirmities and the appellants were acquitted inter 
alia. on the finding that the case against them could not be established 
beyond reasonable doubt. 
An appeal against the acquittal was preferred by the State before the 
Division Bench of the High Court. 
Referring the decisions of this Court in Pala Singh and another v. 
B 
State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 2679 and KGopal Reddy v. State of Andhra C 
Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 387, the High Court was of the view that the view 
taken by the Sessions Judge was not a reasonable and probable view, and 
that there was compelling reason to distrub the finding made by the 
Sessions Judge by reappreciating the evidence. The High Court set aside 
the acquittal order passed by the Sessions Judge and.the appellants were 
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code D 
and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life. 
In this appeal, the accused persons challenged the conviction order 
of the High Court. 
'.be appellants contended that the High Court was not justified in 
interfering with the finding made by the Sessions Judge; that on appreciat-
ing the evidences adduced in the case, the Sessions Judge had given cogent 
reasons for coming to the finding that it was improbably rather doubtful 
that the eye-witnesses had at all lravelled by the same bus and they had 
any occasion to see the murderous assault committed by the accused 
persons; that such view of the Sessions Judge was not a perverse view; that 
if on appreciation of the evidences, the view which was taken by Sessions 
Judge, was also possible in an appeal against acquittal, interference by the 
High Court was not called for; that under normal circumstances, it was 
E 
F 
not expected that the widow within 4 to S days of the death of her husband G 
should leave her house against the prevalent custom of Aber community 
and would accompany the daughter to leave her in her husband's place at 
a distant village; that there was no occasion for the High Court to reap-
praise the evidences of the eye-witnesses and to substitute its own findings; 
that such finding could have been made by the High Court bad there been 
no verdict of acquittal; that the Sessions Judge, on consideration of the H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l992) SUP

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.