GANESH BHAVAN PATEL & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 18-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
94 
GANESH BHAVAN PATEL & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
October 18, 1978 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code-s. 302-Trial court acquitted the accused but the High 
Court convicted thenz-Powers of High Court to re·assesJ ei·idence in an appeal 
fro1n tlll order Of acquittal-If main grounds for acquitting accused are teason· 
able and plausible H;gh Court should not disturb the acquittal. 
The two appellants were charged with the offence of committing the murder 
of the deceased. The prosecution relied mainly upon the evidence of three 
witnesses, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 who claimed to be eye\vi.tnesses. of the 
occurrence. 
The trial court disbelieved those witnesses and acquitted both the appellants. 
On appeal the High Court reexa-mined the evidence and held that the infirmities 
noticed by the trial court in the evidence of witnesses did not constitute good 
grounds for rejecting their evidence, and reversing the order of acquittal, con-
victed both the accused under s. 302 read with s. 34 !.P.O. 
AJ1o\ving the appealJ 
HELD : 1. The overall view of the evidence taken by the trial coiirt ""iis 
E 
reasonable, and the High Court was not, in view of the ~ettled principl~s on the 
subject, justified in reversing the same. 
F 
G 
2. A long line of decisions, starting from Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor (61 
I.A. 398) have firmly established that although in an appeal from an order of 
acquiital the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own 
conclusion, are as extensive as in an appeal a.gainst an order of conviction, yet, 
as a rule of prudence. it should always give proper weight and considera!ion to 
such matters as (i) the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the 
witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a pre-
sumption certadnly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the 
trial; (iii) the Tight of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, end (iv) the 
slo·\rness of an appellate court in disturbing a :finding of fact arrived at by a 
Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Where two reasonable 
conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the lligh Court ~hould, as a 
matter of judicial caution. refrain from interlering with the order of acquittal 
recorded by the court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the 
court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plaus-
ible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High 
Court should not disturb the acquittal. 
[98 F-H] 
H 
In the instant case, some of the main reasons given by the trial court could 
not be effectively and rationally dispelled. One of such reasons, which cast a 
cloud on the credibility of the prosecution evidence, V.'35 that there. was iuordi~ 
• 
• 
' 
• 
1 
• , 
G. B. PATEL v. MAHARASHTRA (Sarkaria, J.) 
95 
nate delay of several hours on the part of the police in recording the statemefit 
A 
which was tre.ated as F.l.R. and further undue delay in recording the statements 
of the alleged 
eye-witnesses by the investigating officer, 
and 
no 
credible 
explaOOAion of these delays was forthcoming. 
Although these witnesses were 
or could be available for examination when the investigating orl1cer visited the 
scene of occurrence, or soon thereafter, their statements were recorded on the 
following day. 
Such delays maiy not, by themselves, amount to a orerious infirmity in the 
prcsecution case. 
But they may assume such a character if there are circum-
stances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view 
to decide about the shape· to be given to the case and the eye-¥.:f!'nesses to be 
introduced. 
A caitena of circumstances which lend such sinister significance to 
these delays, exists in the instant case, which inevitably lead to the conclusion 
B 
that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of 
C 
deliberation, in a shady setting highly redolent of doubt and suspicion. 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JIJRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 
1974. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd/ 4th December I 972 of 
the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1492170. 
S. S. Javali, Amicus Curiae for Appellant No. 1. 
N. H. Hingorani and Mrs. K. Hingorani for Appellant No. 2. 
H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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