RAM KUMAR PANDE versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 519 · Decided: 11-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM KUMAR PANDE 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
February 11, 1975 
[M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 
519 
B 
· Criminal trial-High Court interfering willi acquittal by trial court-When 
Supreme Court can illlerfere with decision of High Court. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
· El'idence Act (I of 1872) s. 11, Scope of. 
Supreme Court (Enlargement of CKimina/ Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970-
A~quittal set aside an~ sentence of life imprisonment imposed-Certificate of 
High Court for appealtng to Supreme Court not necessary. 
The appellant was charged with two offences, (i) under s. 307 I.P.C. with r~s­
pect to one person, and (ii) under s. 302/34, I.P.C. for having, along with other 
accused, caused the death of another. The trial court convicted him under s.324 
J.P.C. on the first charge and acquitted him of the other charge. The appeal by 
the State against the acquittal on the second charge was allowed by the High 
Court and the appellant was convicted under s.302/34 l.P.C. and sentenced to 
life imprisonment. 
Ailowing. the appeal to this Court, 
. HELD : (I) In the case of an appeal against atl/acquittal the appellate court 
should not interfere with the acquittal merely because it can take one of the two 
reasenably possible views which favours conviction. But if the view of the !rial. 
court is not reasonably sustainable, on the evidence on record, the appellate court 
will interfere with the acquittal. If the High Court sets aside an acquittal and 
convicts, this Court has to be satisfied, after examining the prosecution and defence 
cases, and the crucial points emerging for decision from the facts of the case, that 
the view taken by the trial court, on the evidence on recC'rd, is atleast as accept-
able as the one taken by the High Court, before this Court could interfere with 
the decision of the High Court. [5210] 
· 
· 
(a) The First Information Report is a previous statement which, 
strictly 
speaking, can b~ only used to corroborate or contradict the maker o'f it. In the 
present case, the F.I.R. was made by the father of the deceased to whom all the 
important facts of the occurrence were bound to have been communicated. But, 
though the F.I.R. was given about 4 hours after the· incident, it was not mentioned 
therein that the appellant had stabbed the deceased. 
The omission of such an 
important fact affecting the' probabilities of the ·case is relevant under s.1 l nf the 
Evidence Act in judging the veracity of th~ prosecution case. 
(5220) 
(b) The evidence, shows that the deceased was 'stabbed by one or the other 
accused; that the place of occurrence had been shifted by the witnesses for. the 
prosecution; that the version of the alleged eye witnesses is not credible; and that 
the alleged dying 'declaration is unreliable. [524B-DJ 
(2) The High Court, having found that the appellant and the other accused 
were individually responsible for their acts, erred in finding the appellants guilty 
on the basis of common intention. of an offen~e under s. 302134 I.P.C. 
[524FG] 
(3) An appeal to this Court by the accused, in a case where his acquittal had 
heen conv~rted into a conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment was im-
posed upon him, lies as a matter of right under the Supreme Court (Enlargement 
of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, '1970, and no certificate of the High 
Court is necessary. 
[521A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDIGTION: Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 
1972. 
From the Judgment and Order dated the 1st May, 1971 of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 653 of 1970. 
2-470SCI/75 
' 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 3 s.c.R. 
R. K. Bhatt for the appellant. 
Ram Punjwani,, H. S. Parihar and/. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J. The sole appellant Ram Kumar Pandoy, aged 45 . years, 
was tried tog1ether with Suresh Kumar aged 20 years, and Mulkra1, aged 
45 years, aiud Ramesh Kumar, aged 17 years, on two chiarges framed 
against him. 
These were : 
"Firstly; That you on or about the 23rd day of March 
1970 at Raipur, did an act, to wit, hit Uttam Singh with a 
knife with such intention or knowledge and under such 
circumstances, that if by that act, you had c~sed the death 
of Uttam Singh you would have been guilty of murder and 
that you caused grievous hurt to Uttam Singh by the said a::t 
and that you thereby committed an offence, punishable undt~r 
Section 307 l.P.C. and; 
Secondly : That at the said time and place, you or s

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