MAHAVIR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 09-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 394 
MAHAVIR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of2007) 
NOVEMBER 09, 2016 
[A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Appellant-accused alongwith 
other co-accused charged u/ss. 302, 147, 1./8 and 149 !PC - Trial 
court acquitted all the accused in view of contradictory statements 
of PWs, conflict befll'een ocular and medical evidence, delay in 
recording statements of witnesses, non-availability of proper site 
plan and absence of authenticated ballistic expert report - High 
Court partly allowing the appeal of the State convicted the appe/lant-
accused uls. 302 - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case there 
was no .compelling and substantial reason for the High court to 
interfere with the order of acqui1tal, as the prosecution miserably 
failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt - Mere 
sei::ure of gun and cartridges, enmity between the parties, and 
altercation and exchange of heated words between the rival groups 
cannot establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant-
accused is acquitted. 
Criminal trial - Contradict01y statements - Held: It is natural 
for human beings to state variant statements due to time gap - But 
if the stalements go to defeat !he case of the prosecution, such 
contradictions are material and the court has to be mindful of such 
statements. 
Evidence - Ocular evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence -
Ocular testimony has greater evidentimy value vis-a-vis medical 
evidence - But when medical evidence makes the oral testimony 
improbable, ocular evidenc_e may be disbelieved. 
Witnesses: 
Interested witness - Evidentiary value - The evidence of 
interested witness needs to be scrutinized with utmost care - It can 
only be relied upon, if the evidence has ring of truth to it, is cogent, 
394 
MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
395 
credible and trustworthy - A contradicted testimony of an interested A 
witness cannot be usually treated as conclusive. 
Chance Witness - Evidentimy value - Though evidence of 
chance witness is qcceptable. yet such witness has to reasonably 
explain his presence at 1he place of occurrenc:e. 
Appeal -Appeal against acquiual - Held: There are no fetters 
011 the powers of' appellate court to revieH'. re-appreciale and 
reconsider the evidence. on facts as ivell as /all' - But the court is 
required lo be cautious in interfering with m1 appeal unless there 
are compelling and substanlial grounds to inte1fere ll'ith the order 
of acquittal. 
Investigation - Investigating office1~ dealing ll'ith a murder 
case. is expected to be diligent. truthfitl and fair in his approach -
His pe1for111a11ce should always be in conformity with the police 
manual -A default and breach of duty may prove fatal to prosecution 
case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the criminal .inrisprudence, an accused is 
presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court 
after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent 
reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his 
innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing 
with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no 
fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate 
and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which 
the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very 
cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling 
and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. 
The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear 
reasoning for such a conclusion. It is no doubt true that there 
cannot be any strait jacket formula as to under what circumstances 
appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal, but the 
same depends on facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 
12,_ p 1 [ 403-E.-Hl 
1.2 In the present case, from the same set of facts, the trial 
court as well as the High Court have arrived at different 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
conclusions, such an exercise cannot be undertaken by the High 
Court in an appeal unless the conclusion drawn by the trial court 
cannot be sustained based on the facts and circumstances and 
when two conclusions are possible based on the evidence available 
on record, the appellate court should be all the more reluctant to 
B 
c 
D 
E 
interfere with the findings recorded by th

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