ALLARAKHA K. MANSURI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1011 · Decided: 14-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ALLARAKHA K. MANSUR! 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT 
FEBRUARY 14, 2002 
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act 1872: 
Testimony of eye-witnesses-Reliance of-When the evidence of eye-
witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and support the case of prosecution C 
in proving the guilt of the accused, it can be relied upon. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3: 
Section 161-Recording of statement-Manipulation of-When FIR is 
recorded promptly and Magistrate informed-Late recording of statements of D 
witnesses-Held, need not necessary lead to manipulation. 
Criminal Trial: 
Acquittal by trial Court-Not based upon facts or legal evidence tendered 
but as a result u( conjectures and hypothesis-Hence High Court was justified E 
in re-examining the whole evidence and convicting the accused. 
Review Jurisdiction : 
Power of High Court-Jn appeal against the order of acquittal, High 
Court has full powers to review the evidence in the matter and there is no F 
jurisdictional limitation on the appellate Court. 
Appellant-accused along with another person went to the 'Tea Stall' 
of the deceased armed with a "Dharia" and inflicted serious injuries on the 
head and other parts of the deceased, who was later shifted to Hospital. In G 
the meanwhile on receipt of intimation from. the Hospital about the injuries 
" • 
sustained by the deceased, Police recorded the same in tire PQlice Station Diary. 
Thereafter statement of complainant was recorded and FIR Wt:s ~istered. 
The deceased succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. On completf«l of 
the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 
1011 
H 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A Prosecution examined IO witnesses of which 4 were eye witnesses. One of the 
eye-witnesses, however, did not support the case of prosecution and was 
declared hostile. Trial Court discarded the testimony of the eye-witnesses and 
-<. -
acquitted the accused. On appeal, High Court relied upon the testimony of 
eye-witnesses and reversed the Judgment of Trial Court and convicted the 
B accused under Section 302 l.P.C. Hence this appeal by the accused. 
c 
It was contended for the appellant that under Section 378 Cr. P.C., the 
High Court could not disturb the finding of fact of the trial Court; and that 
where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused resulting in 
his acquittal should be accepted. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised 
by the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that though 
the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order 
. of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because 
D with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in 
favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in 
disturbing the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court. The golden thread 
which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is 
that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing 
E 
to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the "iew which is 
favourable to the accused should be accepted. [1017-B-C-Dl 
F 
Shivaii Sahehrao Bohade and .4nr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1973) 
SC 2622, relied on. 
1.2. Paramount consideration of th~ Court should be to avoid 
miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the 
acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case 
where the trial Court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis 
and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining 
G as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Acquittal by 
the trial Court cannot be made a basis to urge that the High Court under all 
circumstances should not disturb such a finding. [1018-G-H; 1019-Al 
2.1. In the instant case, the trial Court relied upon certain aspects of 
the case for passing an order of acquittal. None of these circumstances or 
H aspects can !>c .1eld to be based upon legal evidence. In the absence of any 
ALLARAKHA K. MANS URI v. ST A TE OF GUJARAT 
1013 
discrepancy as to certain entries in the FIR and in Police Station Diary the A 
-~ .... 
accused-appellant could not be acquitted. These two entries did not ma

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