BANWAR LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 27-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

...,.._ __ .... 
BANWAR LAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
September 27, 1984 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., D. A. DESAI AND 
M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
859 
The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crimi11al Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 
1970 Section 2 (a)-Duty of Supreme Court-Appreciation of evfdence-Evltknce 
of independent witness corroborated by his identifying the accused In an identifica· 
tton parade and recOverY of the blood stained banlyan worn by the accused and 
B 
c 
the blood stained knife, value. 
D 
The appellant alone with Kanahiya Lal, Ram Niwas and Badri Lal was 
charged under Section 302 read with Section 3~ Indian Penal Code and tried 
for the offence of murder of one Gyanchand by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, 
Rajasthan. The learned Judae convicted and sentenced Kanahiya Lal alone to 
life imprisonment and acquitted the rest. In appeal. the High Court of Rajas. 
than, while confirming the conviction of Kanahiya Lal as also the acquittal of 
E 
two out of the three persons, convicted and sentenced the appellant also to life 
imprisonment. Hence the appeal under the Supreme Court Enlargement of 
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 . 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : Since the High Court set aside an order of acquittal and sentenced 
F 
the appellant to life imprisonment it is necessary for the Supreme Court to 
consider whether two views of the evidence arc reasonably possible and whether, 
the Hieh Court was justified in settina: aside the order of acquittal passed by the 
trial Court in favour of the appellant. Approaching the case and assessing the 
evidence from that point of view, it is clear, that the conviction of the appellant 
in view of the evidence of Bodu Lal as corroborated by the discovery of the 
blood stained baniya!l and knife is unassailable. He is an independent and the 
most important witnesS in whose cycle rickshaw the appellant and the co.accused 
G 
Kanhiya Lal travelled from the hotel of Shankar Maharaj to the scene of 
offence. Bodu Lal identified the appellant in the identification parade and his 
evidence as to the colour of baniyan worn by the appellant at the time of the 
incident tallied with that of the one stained with human blood and recovered 
from the accused. A knife stained with human blood also recovered from bis 
person confirmed his ¥uilt. (860E-F, 86I·ll·Cl 
ff 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] l S.C.R 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 224 
B 
c 
D Ii 
E 
F 
G 
H 
of 1974. 
From the Judgment and Order Dated 8.1.73 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 1970. 
Naunit Lal & Kai/ash Vasdev. for the appellant. 
B.D. Sharma for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. 
Four persons were tried by the learned 
Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, under section 302 read with section 34 of 
the Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted three out of the four 
accused and convicted only one of them, namely, Kanahiya Lal. 
The High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction of Kanahiya 
Lal, as also the acquittal of two out of the three persons who were 
acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, set 
aside the acquittal of the appellant, convicted him under section 
302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to 
life imprisonment. 
Since the High Court has set aside an order of acquittal and 
has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, it is necessary to 
consider whether two views of the evidence are reasonably possible 
and whether, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order 
of acquittal passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant. 
Having approached the case and assessed the evidence from that 
point of view, we are of the opinion that it is impossible to agree 
with the view taken by the trial court. The High Court has 
specifically dealt with reasons given by the trial court in support of 
the order of acquittal and has demonstrated in a good measure as 
to why those reasons cannot be accepted. We concur in the High 
Court's appreciation of evidence. 
The incident out of which the prosecution arose happened at 
about 8 p.m. on September 29, 1968 at Bbilwara Rajasthan, leading 
to the death of one Gyanchand. The motive for the offence is 
alleged to be that Gyanchand's brother, Nemi Chand, owed money 
to accused Nos. 3 and 4, Ram Niwas and Badri Lal. Nemi Chand 
was evading to pay the debt which created bitterness between the two 
brothers

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