CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI versus POPATBHAI MANILAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 776 
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI 
V. 
POPATBHAI MANILAL AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2002) 
JULY 31, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.378 - Appeal 
against acquittal - Acquittal by trial court - High Court 
C affirmed order of acquittal holding that medical evidence did 
not disclose that injuries caused on deceased were sufficient 
in ordinary course of nature to cause death; witnesses were 
interested persons and not reliable and there was delay in 
lodging FIR - Appeal filed by complainant challenging the 
o acquittal - Held: Finding of High Court was contrary to medical 
record - Fact that witnesses were related cannot be a ground 
to discard their evidence - Records show that there was no 
delay in lodging FIR - High Court did not exercise its 
jurisdiction properly u/s.378 in appreciating material on. 
E record while approving order of acquittal of trial court - Order 
of acquittal set aside - High Court to hear the State's appeal 
.._
afresh - Evidence. 
The present appeal is filed by complainant against 
the order of acquittal passed by the courts below. The 
F complainant is the mother of the deceased who was 
allegedly murdered by the respondents. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. It is well settled that in an appeal against 
acquittal the appellate court does not reverse the finding 
of acquittal if the Court while granting acquittal has taken 
a reasonable or a possible view on the evidence and 
materials on record. Law is equally well settled that if the 
776 
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 777 
AND ORS. 
.. 
view taken by the Court granting acquittal is perverse or A 
shocks the conscience of the higher Court, the finding 
of acquittal can be reversed. The High Court as the first 
appellate court has a duty to consider in detail the 
material on record and also appreciate the evidence very 
carefully before affirming the order of acquittal given by 
B 
the trial Court. (Para 10] [782-F-H; 783-A] 
Chandrappa and others v. State of Kamataka (2007) 4 
1 
SCC 415;Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of M.P. (2003) 
3 SCC 21; Mahtab Singh & Anr. v. State of UP. JT 2009 (5) 
C 
SC 431; Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. (2006) 13 SCC 303; 
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another v. State of 
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, referred to. 
2.1. The High Court held that the medical evidence 
did not disclose that injuries caused on the person of D 
deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to 
cause death. The said finding is totally contrary to the 
record, if one looks at the evidence of the doctor who 
conducted the post-mortem examination on the 
deceased. On internal examination, the doctor opined 
E 
that on the chest "injury goes deeply posterior upwards 
and laterally in a way. The doctor clearly opined that the 
cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to stab 
injury on the chest. By characterizing these injuries as 
not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death, the 
F 
High Court, with respect, fell into a grave error and its 
appreciation of evidence borders on perversity. This was 
a glaring infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. 
[Paras 15 and 16] (786-C-D; 787-8-D] 
2.2. The other reason given by High Court in affirming 
G 
the order of acqui~tal was that the witnesses were 
interested persons and no independent witness was 
examined. The other reason giyen by the High Court to 
support_ the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court was 
H 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A that much time had elapsed between the occurrence and 
.. 
filing of a complaint. The High Court also came to the 
finding that the blood stained clothes, weapons were not 
examined and this created a doubt about the veracity of 
the prosecution case. [Para 17] [787-E-G] 
8 
2.3. There were three eye-witnesses and one of them 
was an injured witness. Their evidence cannot be 
discarded just on the ground that they were related to the 
deceased. It is settled law that if the evidence of the 
c witnesses, who are related, Is credible and cogent, the 
fact that they are related is not a ground for discarding 
such evidence. [Para 18] [787-G-H; 788-A] 
3. About the delay of lodging the FIR, it is found that 
immediately after the occurrence the deceased was taken 
D to the hospital by the complainant and other relations 
where the deceased was declared dead. One G.D was 
entered by 11 :05 on the same night w

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