BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 02-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 48 : 2024 INSC 258
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another 
v. 
The State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018)
02 April 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court whether justified in reversing the acquittal of the 
appellant Nos.1 and 2 and convicting them u/ss.302 and 201/34 
and ss.302/34 and 201, Penal Code, 1860 respectively and 
sentencing accordingly; whether the prosecution proved its case 
beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellants were guilty 
of committing the crime.
Headnotes
Appeal against acquittal – Interference – When not sustainable:
Held: Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence – Trial 
Judge gave sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony 
of the IO and the other witnesses and by elaborately discussing 
the evidence found that the appellants were not guilty – Findings of 
the trial Judge were based on correct appreciation of the material 
placed on record – This elaborate exercise of the trial Judge was 
washed away by the Division Bench of the High Court in a totally 
cursory manner – Though the High Court referred to the law laid 
down by this Court with regard to the scope of interference in 
an appeal against acquittal, it totally misapplied the same and a 
very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct appreciation 
of evidence by the trial Court was reversed only on the basis of 
conjectures and surmises – High Court could have interfered 
in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the 
findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible – No 
perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted 
by the trial Judge – Furthermore, in any case, even if two views 
were possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be 
more probable, an interference would not have been warranted 
by the High Court, unless the view taken by the trial Judge was 
a perverse or impossible view – Prosecution failed to prove any 
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
49
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and 
in no case, the chain of circumstances, which was so interlinked 
to each other that led to no other conclusion, than the guilt of the 
accused persons – Judgment passed by the High Court being 
unsustainable is quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted. 
[Paras 6, 12-14, 16, 19-23]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Law as regards 
conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 
[1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – relied on.
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. [2016] 1 SCR 
913 : (2016) 4 SCC 397; Harljan Bhala Teja v. State 
of Gujarat [2016] 2 SCR 203 : (2016) 12 SCC 665 – 
referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence 
Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Appeal against acquittal; Circumstantial evidence; Chain of 
circumstances not interlinked; Case not proved beyond reasonable 
doubt; Conjectures and surmises; Findings perverse or impossible; 
Two possible views; Perverse or impossible view.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1167 
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2018 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Cr. A. No.261 of 1995
Appearances for Parties
Varun Thakur, Ramkaran, Ms. Shraddha Saran, Brajesh Pandey, 
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Vikas Bansal, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Ms. 
Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, 
Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Ms. Ruby, Advs. for the Respondent.
50
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1.	
The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 6th April 2018 
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal 
Appeal No. 261 of 1995, thereby allowing the appeal of the respondent-
State which was filed challenging the judgment dated 26th March 1994 
passed in S.T. No. 160 of 1992, vide which the learned 2nd Class 
Sessions Judge, Damoh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial 
Judge’) had acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 
302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred 
to as ‘IPC’). The High Court, reversing the judgment of the learned 
trial Judge, had convicted the appella

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