AJITSINGH THAKURSINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 09-01-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
r 
•, 
• 
AJITSINGH THAKURS!NGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
January 9, 1981 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
509 
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 
-S. 2 & Indian Penal Code, S. 302 High Court setting aside order of acquillal 
of SeS&'iona Cpurt -
Approach to be adopted by High Court in exercising appel-
late powera -
High Court to consider whether integrality of evidence alone can 
•-
ensure that accused are guilty. 
limitation Act 1963, Art, 114 & S. 5-De/ay in filing, appeal against order 
of acquittal-Condonation of-Any 
event 
or circu1nstance 
arising 
after 
expiry of li111itation-whether can constitute 'sufficient cause'. 
The two appellants who were father 311.ld son alongwith another son, who 
was acquitted were charged with the offence of committing the murder of tho 
deceesed and of causing injuries to his two brothers all of whom were residing 
in a chaw! belonging to the first appellant. 
The prosecution alleged that on 
the fateful day the appellants demanded payment of rent from the deceased 
and refuse! to make immediate payment infuriated the second appellant who 
infilcted two kirpan blows on him. 
When the deceased started running to the 
room of W. brothers he wa• pursued and further kirpan blows were infiictecl 
on him. 
His brothers were also atta.cked by 
the three accused. 
After the 
incident all the accused ran away from the place leaving their bicycles behind. 
The decea&ed succumbed to his injuries in the hospital and one of his brothers 
was admitted. as an indoor patient. 
The three a<:Cused were tried by the Addi. Sessions Judge. 
As there were 
n1aterial contradiction& in the 'eye witnesses' account of the sequence of events, 
the exact places where tho blows were struck, and tho role played by each 
aC<:UICd and the seizure of four bicycleo by the police at the scene being incon-
sittent with the prosecution case that threo persons, the accused were involved 
rthe Seooions Judge held tho evidence to bo untrustworthy and being of opinion 
that it was unsafe and hazardous to convict the accused on such. testimony he 
gave them the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. 
No appeal was filed at first becau'° the State Government saw no cMe on 
the merita for an appeal. However, in a revision petition filed by one of the 
brothers of the deceased the High Court declared that the case waa a fit case 
where the State Government should file 
an appeal. Thereafter, the State 
Government filed an appeal, in the High Court and prayed for condonation of 
the delay in filing the appeal. 
The High Court condoned the delay considered 
the appeal on its merits, and allowed it against the two appellants. Tho appeal 
agiilnst the acquittal _of the third ru:cnsed wos dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
p 
G 
HEID: l(i) There was no sufficient cause for the State not filing 
the 
H 
appeal within time, and tho High Court erre<l' in condoning the delay. 
[512 F-H] 
-
---;i:i:· ~-
--
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(ii) A party is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation fo" filing an 
appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads sufficient cause for 
not filing the appeal earlier, the sufficient cause must establish that because of 
some event or circumstance 
arising 
before limitation expired it was not 
possible to file the appeal within time. No event or circumstance arising after 
the expiry of limitation can constitute such sufficient cause. 
There may be 
events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of Limitaticn which 
may 
B 
further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the limitation has been allowe<l 
to expire without the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arlsin!i 
within the period of limitation. [512 GJ 
2(i) The High Court erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial 
court. [515 DJ 
-t 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(ii) The approach to be adopted by the High Court v1hen exercising its 
appeUate powers in a case of appeal against an order of acquittal has been 
defined in a long line of cases. 
As long o.go as 1934, the Privy Council declared 
that the High Court must give proper weight 
and com.ideration to "such 
matters as (1) the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; 
(2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, 
a presun1ption 
certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) 
the right o

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