STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BACCHUDAS@ BALARAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 10-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

J. 
' .... 
.. 
STATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
v. 
BACCHUDAS@ BALARAM AND ORS. 
JANUARY 10,2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 378 and 386-Appeal 
against acquittal-Power of appellate court to review evidence-Scope 
of-Stated-On facts, on re-appreciation of evidence of witnesses, order of 
acquittal passed by High Court suffers from no infirmity to warrant 
interference-Penal Code, I 860-Section, 304 rlw 34. 
Criminal law-Two views-Possibility-Effect of-Held: If two views 
are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt 
of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the 
accused should be adopted-Criminal jurisprudence. 
According to the prosecution case, on account of enmity between the 
parties, respondents-accused killed the deceased. On appreciation of evidence 
of PW 1-widow of the deceased, PW 2-son of the deceased and PW 11-child 
witness, trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondents for offence 
punishable under section 304 Part II IPC read with section 34 IPC. High 
Court held that the guilt of the respondents could not be established since 
the evidence of prosecution witnesses was unbelievable and thus, acquitted 
the respondents. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the 
evidence upon which an acquittal order is based. Generally, the acquittal 
order shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of 
the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that 
G 
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing 
to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which 
is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration 
of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A 
miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no H 
671 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007J l S.C.R. 
A 
less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible 
evidence is ignored, duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate 
the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of 
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence 
or not. [Para 9) [675-E-G] 
B 
Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP, [2003] 3 SCC 21, relied on. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1.2. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the 
appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are 
compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment 
is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been 
unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reas~n for 
interference. [Para 9) [675-G-H, 676-A] 
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793; 
Ramesh Babula/ Dashi v. State of Gujarat, [1996) 9 SCC 225; Jaswant 
Singh v. State of Haryana, [2000) 4 SCC 484; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of 
Bihar, [2003) 11 SCC 519; State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, [2003) 11 
SCC 271; State of Punjab v. Pho/a Singh, [2003) 11 SCC 58; Suchand Pal 
v. Phani Pal, [2003) 11 SCC 527 and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of UP, 
[2004) 11 sec 410, relied on. 
2.1 High Court noticed several inconsistencies in the prosecution 
version. Though silence of a witness per se may not render prosecution 
version suspect, what has been disclosed by PW-2 is not found credible, 
particularly when considered in the background of PW-1'.s evidence. It was 
at variance with what the mother PW-1 stated. Evidence of PW-1 has been 
rightly discarded by the High Court. The version given in the first 
information
1
· report varies from the evidence given in the Court. 
[Paras 7, 8] [675-A-D] 
2.2 When the conclusions of the High Court in the b~ckground of the 
evidence on record are tested on the touch stone of the principles set out, 
the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court's judgment does not suffer 
from any infirmity to interference. [Para 10) [676-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 
2007. 
H 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2004 of the High Court 
./' 
STATE v. BACCHUDAS@BALRAM[PASAYAT,J.] 
673 
of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (Gwalior Bench) in Cr!. A. No. 
24

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