AHER RAJA K.HIMA versus THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1285 · Decided: 22-12-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPO~TS 
1285 
report of the 
Income-tax 
Investigation 
Commission 
dated the 26th August 1952 and the assessment orders 
of the Income-Tax 
Officer for the y.ears . 1940-41, 
1941"42 and 1943-44 to 1948-49, and that a writ 
of 
prohibition do i$sue against the resP,ondents restrain-
ing them from implementing the findings. of the In-
vestigation Commission 
with 
r~g;µ-~ 
to the year 
1942-43. 
The 
respondents do pay the 
peritioners' 
costs of their petition. 
AHER RAJA K.HIMA 
v. 
THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA-
[VIVIAN BosE, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and 
CHA:NDRASEKHARA Arr AR JJ l 
Appeal against Acqu#tal....-Scqpe of-PoU}ers of Court-Guiding 
principles-Code .of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), s. 417 
Pel"' 
BosE and 
OitANDRAsEKHARA 
A1YAll JJ, 
(VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR J. dissenting). It is well settled that the High' Court should not 
set aside an order of acquittal under s, 417 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure simply 
because it differs from the trial Court as to the 
appreciation of the evidence ; there must be substantial and com-
pelling reasons for doing so. · Whete the trial Court takes a reason-
able view of the facts of the case, interference is not justifiable un-
less there are really· strong reasons for holding otherwise. 
Amar Singh v; State of Punjab ([1953] S.C.R. 418) and Surajpal 
Singh v. State ( f19521 S.C.R. 193), referred t,o. 
The accused in a criminal case must be given the benefit of every 
reasonable doubt and, therefore when he offers a reasonable expla-
nation of his conduct, althougl;i he cannot prove it, that explanation 
should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that 
it is false. 
Conseq11ently,. in a case where an accused person, charged under 
ss. 302 and 447 of the lndian Penal Code, repudiated his confession 
at the earliest opportunity as having been made under Police threats 
administered to l>im at night while in, jail custody and there was 
evidence to show that the Police had access to hiru there, and there 
was nothing to displace his statement that he was 
threatened 
by 
them, the finding of the Sessions Judge that the t:onfession was not 
voluntary in character was fair and reasonaok and in the absence 
of auy compellihg reason the High Court shotild not have set aside 
the order of acquittal. 
1955 
M- Ct. Mulhiah 
and 2 others 
·v. 
The' Commission., 
of ltu:of/14-tax, 
Madras and 
another 
Jaganlladhadas J. 
1955 
Decmiher 22. 
1955 
Ahtr Raja Khima 
v. 
The State of 
Saurashlra 
1286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
As the evidence otherwise was insufficient to warrant a convic-
tion the accused was acquitted. 
Per VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. 
This is not a case in which the 
Supreme Court should interfere under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 
The Consti.tution by specifically providing for 
an appeal on facts 
under Art. 134( 1) intended to exclude it under Art, 136 and like the 
Privy Council this Court will not function as a further Court of ap-
peal on facts in criminal Cases. 
The fact that the appeal in the High Court was one against an 
order of acquittal makes no difference as the powers of an appellate 
Court are the same in all appeals, whether -against acquittal or 
against conviction. 
Pritam Singh v. The State ([1950] S.C.R. 453), Shea Swarup v. 
King-Emperor ([19341 L.R. 61 I.A. 398) and Nur Mohammad v. 
Emperor (A.LR. 1945 P.C. 151), relied on. 
The expression "compelling reasons" 
used in Surajpal Singh's 
case should be read only in the context of that case and should not 
be 
treated as a rigid formula so as to restrict the powers of the 
Court, or the right of appeal conferred on the State by s. 417 of the 
Code or to place a judgment of acquittal in a l'osition of vantage and 
give the accused a protection which the law does not afford to them. 
Such a formula can be of use only as guiding principle for the appel-
late Courts in determining questions of fact. 
Surajpal Singh v. The State ([1952] S.C.R. 193), considered. 
Consequently, the findings arrived at by the High Court were 
not open to review by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution 
and as 
there was evidence apart from the retracted confession to 
support the view it had taken on merits, the appeal must be diSmissed. 
CRIMINAL 
.APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 64 of 1955. 
On appeal by 
special leave from the judgment 
and 
order dated the 27th February 1954 of 
the 
Saurashtra High Court at Rajkot in Criminal Appeal 
No. 108 of 1953 

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