RAMJI SURJYA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 268 · Decided: 13-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · 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 
268 
RAMJI StJRlY A & ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 
May 13, 1983 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appe/Jate Jurisdiction) Act, 
1970-S. 2--Accused acquitted by trial court but convicted by High Court, 
Corroboration of evidence of sole eye witness-When necessary. Jurisdiction 01· 
appellate court co-extensive with that of trial court-Appellate court cannot 
·totally brush aside appreciation of evidence by I rial Court. 
Appellate court to 
give cogent reasons/or conviction should be slow in interfering. 
The appellants were charged under section 302134 I.P.C. for murdering 
ti1e husband of P.W. 2 when he was lying on a cot inside a hut and the P. W. 2 
.was sitting outside. The trial court disbelieved the case of prosecution that 
P.W. 2 was an eye witness of the occurrence. 
The trial court held tha·t the 
details of the incident givell by P.W. 2 were imaginary or improbable and; 
therefore, Unbelievable ; there was several contradictions in her evidence which 
could not be accepted without any further corroboration and the evidence 
of certain other prosecution witnesses could not be safely relied Qil as 
furnishing corroboration to the statement of P.W. 2 in view of the several 
instances narrated in its judgment. The evidence of the doctoi who conducted 
postnlo~tem examination of the body of the deceased was that the death of 
the deceased could not have taken place soon after the dinner as he did n•Jt find 
any food particles in the stomach and small~intestines of the decJased. The 
trial court· observed that the evidence of P.W. 2 that she had served food for 
the deceased at about 8.30 p;M. could not be accepted as. probable as the 
fatal assault had taken place at about 9 P. M. There was a delay 9.f nearly 
24 hours in giving the information to the police out post. The evidence for 
motive also was found to be discrepant. Accordingly the trial court acquitted 
· the appellants. 
On appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal, convicted 
the appellants and sentenced them to undergo'rigorous imprisonment for life. 
The High Court severely critised the evidence of the doctor observing that. 
"our impression is that he hardly knows. what he is talking about and what is 
extraordinary is that that the less he knows the more assertive he is. No 
reliance what so ever can be placed on such evidence and no conclusion can 
be drawn either adverse or in favoU.r of the prosecution from the: opinion 
evidence of such a poorly qualified medical witness". 
Allowing the appeal, 
RAMJI SURIYA V. MAHARASHTRA 
269 
HELD : There is Do doubt that even where there is only a sole eye 
witness of a crime, a conviction may be recorded against the accused· concerned 
provided the Court which hears such witness regards him as honest and 
truthful. But prudence requires that some corroboration should be sought 
from the other prosecution evidence in support of the testimony of a solitary 
witness particulafly where such witness also happens to be closely related tO 
the deceased and the accused are those against whon1 some motive or ill will is 
suggested. [276 G-H] 
In the instant case a careful analysis of the evidence relating to the 
inordinate delay involved in the giving of the first information to the poliCe 
·and the other inherent inconsistencies in the evidence of the sole eye witness 
shows that her evidence cannot be considered as sufficient to find the accused 
guilty. The first_infonnation· (Fxh. P. 10) itself appears to be one prepared 
A 
B 
after some deliberation. The niotive suggested by the prosecution does not 
C 
appear to be strong enough for the accused joining together to commit the 
murder of the deceased [276 H, 277 A, 275 C] 
While there is no doubt that the jurisdiction of an appellate court is 
co-extensive with that of the trial court, in the case of an appeal against a 
judgment of acquittal it cannot totally brush aside the ·appreciation of the 
evidence by the trial court. The reasons for reversirig a judgment of acquittal 
should be cogent and if two views are reasonably possible, the appellate court 
should be slow in interfering with the judgment of the ~rial court, even if it is 
possible for it to take a different view after a process of laborious rea~oning. 
[277G-tt,, 278 A] 
Jn the instant case the High Court has not bestowed due care on the 
principles governing: its jurisdiction. There is no

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