LexUMEDBHAI JADAVBHAI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UMEDBHAI JADAVBHAI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT December 16, 1977 [P. K. GOSWAMI AND V. 0. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J 471 Appr:al against ac~ruittal u/s 378 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Enter· tainment of an appeal is justified only under special circun1stances-High Court is enti1led to '·eappreciate the entire evidence. Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-In a case resting on circumstantial evidence. all the circt1mstances ,brought out by the prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point out to the guilt of the accused. A ·rne appellant accused was charged and tried for the offence of murder of his w;fe on the night between 20th and 21st November 1972, but acquitted by C the Sessions Judge. ()n state appeal against acquittal u/s 378 Crl.P.C., 1973 the Gujarat High Court on reapprisal of the evidence in the case, disbelieved the theory of theft and the venue of assault, found the appellant guilty, con- victed him for the offence u/s 302 J.P.C. and sentenced him to in1prisonment '-, for life. Dismissing the appeal, the Court. HELD : ( ·1) In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the trial court's conclusion unless there are compelling reasons to do so, inter alia, on account of manifest errors of law or of fact resulting in nliscarriage of justice. [475E] (2) Entertainment of the appeal by the High Court against an acquittal \viii be justified only under special circumstances. Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal the High Court was entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily the High (:ourt would -give due importance· to the opinion of the Sessions JUdge, if the ,same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. Jn the present ca'se, this rule will not be applicable where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and·clinch- ing aspect in the pec.uliar circumstances of the case. [4750, 476C-D] (3) In a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstances which may reaso11- ably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the cumu- lative effect of all the circun1stances in a given case and weigh them as an integrate<! whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case. [475FG] (4) In the instant case :-(a) The High Court was justified in entertaining the appeal against acquittal. An absolutely erroneous conclusion on such an important aspect has :led to a failure of justice. The Sessions Judge has com- mitted a manifest error of record when he held that 'there was a pool of blood in the outer room and trail of blood-stains leading from the outer room to the inner-room" and relying on which he came to the conclusion that "the victim was stabbed in the outer-room while she was running from the outer- room into the inner-room". There_ was no evidence oral or documentary to substantiate it. But on the contrary, as noticed and relied on by the High Court was the Panchnama (Ext. 15 revealing the significant fact that there were blood stains on the pillows where the head rests, the mattress and on the bed spread ( chadar), one of the important circumstance-to establish that the incident had taken place while the victim was sleeping on the bed on the floor. The evidence was of profuse bleeding on the bed and there was no "pool of blood in the outer room". (475H, 476A-Cl D E F G H B 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 2 S.C.R. . (b) The assault t~ok place while the deceased was asleep on her b;:;d and since there was no violence on the door or any part of the house bv which it could be suggested that an outsider came into the room, the accused· alone had the exclusiVe opportunity to cause the seven injuries in a closed room resulting in her death. [477C-D] ( c) The story of theft is absolutely false. The fact that ho shouted "thief, thief" is a deliberate false plea in answer to an inevitable charge against him. [478B] (d) The High Court was absolutely correct in appreciation of thl;!" entire circumstances and reaching the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. It is not a case in which it could be said that two views ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.