RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 02-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI 
v. 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT 
MAY 2, 1996 
(M.K MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,-S.379-Appeal against reversal of 
acquittaf-Trial Court acquitting appellant of charge of murder-High Court 
reappraising evidence and convicting the appellant without considering trial 
court's findings-Held, reasons given by trial court's were cogent and convinc-
ing and the High Court's approach in reappraising evidence was patently 
wrong. 
A 
B 
c 
Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-After initial search of 
premises of accused two days after event only a pair of blood stained trousers 
recovered-Keys of house left with brother~ in-law of accuseti-Second search D 
after five days leading to recovery of articles containing stains matching 
victim's blood group-Appellant not having access to flat-Held, the entire 
story of search and recovery of the. articles was a myth. 
Criminal triaf-Circumstantial evidence-Theory of last seen-Held, on E 
facts, even if proved did not by itself lead to the only conclusion that the 
appellant was guilty. 
· 
In seeking to prove the .charge that it was the appellant who had 
111urdered the deceased, who carried on business in diamonds, at his house 
in Surat on September 2, 1980, the prosecution relied upon, inter alia, the F 
following circumstances : that the appellant, who also dealt in diamonds, 
and the deceased were seen moving on a scooter between 12 noon and 1.30 
p.m. on the fateful day; that the following morning the appellant was seen 
going out with others with a trunk in which the dead body of the deceased 
was subsequently recovered and that some of the articles that were seized G 
from the appellant's house on the morning of September 9 were found to 
contain human blood of Group A which also was the blood group of the 
deceased. The Trial court after discussing the evidence at great length held. 
that the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove any one of the cir-
cums!ances and accordingly acquitted the appellant and the three other 
co-accused. 
H · 
265 
• 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The High Court on a reappraisal or the evidence and without con-
B 
sidering the findings of the trial court, reversed the acquittal of the 
appellant while confirming the acquittal of the co-accused. The High Court 
found each or the three circumstances mentioned above to be conclusively 
proved. 
Allowing the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1.1. The reasons given by the trial Court for recording the 
order or acquittal in favour of the appellant are cogent and convincing and 
the High Court was not at all justified in disturbing the same by reapprais-
e ing the evidence. The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with 
the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the 
question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court for 
recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. [276-G, 277-E] 
D 
1.2. The mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial 
Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal 
of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere 
with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire 
approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal 
E 
or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. [271-F-G] 
2. Each of the reasons given by the trial court for disbelieving the 
three witnesses said to have seen the appellant carrying the trunk are clear, 
cogent and convincing. [274-A] 
F 
3. The entire story or search and recovery of a lot of articles from 
inside the flat on September 9 was a myth as it was stated to have taken 
place despite the following tell-tale circumstances, viz., admittedly the flat 
of the appellant was searched in the night between September 4 and 5, 1980 
by the police by breaking open the lock; at the time except a pair of trousers 
nothing incriminating was found; the flat was locked again and the for 
G reasons unable to be fathomed, the keys were kept with the brother-in-law 
of the appellant; the appellant had no access to the flat till it was searched 
again on September 9. [275-G·H] 
4. That the appellant was last seen with the deceased stood proved 
Ii. did not further the prosecution case for, by itself, it did not lead to the 
l·
R.B. DOSHI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.) 
267 
only conclusion that the appellan

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