GOPAL SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 1062 · Decided: 12-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010] 6 S.C.R. 1062 
GOPAL SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1297 of 2008) 
MAY 12, 2.010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Allowed by High 
Court - Justification - Held: On facts, not justified - If trial 
C court's judgment is well based on the evidence and the 
conclusion drawn in favour of the acci.;;;;.;:d ts possible, High 
Court would not be justified in interfenng on the premise that 
a different view could also be taken - Though High Court is 
entitled to reappraise the evidence, there should be 
D substantial and compelling reasons for setting aside an 
acquittal order and making one of conviction -· In the case at 
hand, the trjpl court gave positive findings with regard to 
various aspects of the prosecution story- The High Court was 
not able to meet the reasons which weighed with the trial court 
E in drawing its conclusion - Case did not call for interference 
by High Court. 
According to the prosecution, due to serious enmity 
on account of land dispute, the appellants severely beat 
two persons with "lathis", "lohangis" and "farsas" 
F thereby causing their death. The prosecution relied 
primarily on the 'eye-witness account of'PW5 and on the 
oral dying declarations made by the two deceased to 
PW4, PW9, PW10 and PW11. In addition, the prosecution 
relied on the recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure 
G statements of the accused. 
The trial Court held it to be a case of delayed FIR. It 
found the dying declarations unbelievable, the evidence 
of the solitary eye-witness PW5 totally unnatural, and the 
H 
1062 
GOPAL SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 
1063 
investigation completely irresponsible and shoddy, and 
A 
accordingly acquitted the accused-appellants. 
Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State 
Government filed appeal in the High Court which was 
allowed. 
B 
In this Court, it was contended by the appellants, that 
the High Court was remiss in upsetting the order of 
acquittal as the trial court had by a very cogent and 
detailed judgment considered every aspect of the matter 
and acquitted the accused, and the High Court had 
C 
ignored the basic principle that if the view taken by the 
trial court was possible on the evidence, no interference 
should be made. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The High Court's power while converting 
an acquittal into a conviction is no longer a matter of 
speculation and debate. It is now well settled that if the 
trial court's judgment is well based on the evidence and 
the conciusion drawn in favour of the accused was 
E 
possible thereof, the High Court would not be justified in 
interfering on the premise that a different view could also 
be taken and though the High Court was entitled to 
reappraise the evidence there should be substantial and 
compelling reasons for setting aside an acquittal order 
F 
· and making one of conviction. (Para 7) [1071-C-D) 
2. A bare perusal of the record and the findings 
recorded by the trial court reveal that the present case is 
not one of the category which would call for interference 
G 
by the High Court. The trial court has given positive 
findings with regard to the various aspects of the 
prosecution story. The High Court has, in the course of 
its judgment, .not been able to meet the reasons which 
weighed witt;J the trial court in drawing its conclusion. The 
H 
1064 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 
A fact that the first report had been recorded at about 1 p.m. 
and suppressed by the prosecution has been largely 
ignored by referring to the first information recorded at 
about 4.45 p.m. after the Ruqa had been sent by Sub-
Inspector from the place of incident to the Police Station. 
B The High Court has also ignored the fact that there was 
no evidence to show as to when special report had been 
dispatched to or received by the Magistrate. The inference 
drawn by the Trial Court, therefore, that the first 
information of 1 p.m. had been suppressed by the 
c prosecution as the names of the assailants were not 
known and that there was no evidence to confirm the 
time of the recording of the FIR shortly after 4.45 p.m. as 
there was no evidence of the dispatch or delivery of the 
special report, which cast clearly suspicion even on this 
0 part of the prosecution story, has not been dealt with by 
the High Court. [Para 8] [1071-A-H; 1072-A-B] 
3. The High Court has examined the reliability of the 
oral dying 

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