Holding

The conviction of the appellant is upheld; the High Court’s appreciation of the evidence is correct.

Summary

Four persons, including the appellant Banwar Lal, were tried for the murder of Gyanchand under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge acquitted three accused and convicted only Kanahiya Lal, but the Rajasthan High Court set aside the acquittal of Banwar Lal, relying on the testimony of an independent witness, Bodu Lal, and the recovery of a blood‑stained baniyan and knife from the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. The Supreme Court examined whether the evidence could support two reasonable views and whether the High Court was justified in overturning the acquittal. It held that Bodu Lal’s identification, corroborated by the physical evidence, made the conviction unassailable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s judgment affirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court’s acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
Whether the evidence of an independent witness, identification parade, and blood‑stained clothing and weapon can sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2(a)

Subjects

murderconvictionacquittalidentification paradeindependent witnessblood‑stained evidencelife imprisonmentSupreme Courtcriminal appellate jurisdictionSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPC

Judgment

859

BANWAR LAL

v.
B
STATE OF RAJASTHAN

September 27, 1984

[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., D. A. DESAI AND
M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.]
c
The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Crimi11al Appellate Jurisdiction) Act
1970 Section 2 (a)-Duty of Supreme Court-Appreciation of evfdence-Evltknce
of independent witness corroborated by his identifying the accused In an identifica·
tton parade and recOverY of the blood stained banlyan worn by the accused and
the blood stained knife, value. D
The appellant alone with Kanahiya Lal, Ram Niwas and Badri Lal was
charged under Section 302 read with Section 3~ Indian Penal Code and tried
for the offence of murder of one Gyanchand by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan. The learned Judae convicted and sentenced Kanahiya Lal alone to
life imprisonment and acquitted the rest. In appeal. the High Court of Rajas.
than, while confirming the conviction of Kanahiya Lal as also the acquittal of E
two out of the three persons, convicted and sentenced the appellant also to life
imprisonment. Hence the appeal under the Supreme Court Enlargement of
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
...,.._ ....
__

Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

HELD : Since the High Court set aside an order of acquittal and sentenced F
the appellant to life imprisonment it is necessary for the Supreme Court to
consider whether two views of the evidence arc reasonably possible and whether,
the Hieh Court was justified in settina: aside the order of acquittal passed by the
trial Court in favour of the appellant. Approaching the case and assessing the
evidence from that point of view, it is clear, that the conviction of the appellant
in view of the evidence of Bodu Lal as corroborated by the discovery of the
blood stained baniya!l and knife is unassailable. He is an independent and the
most important witnesS in whose cycle rickshaw the appellant and the co.accused G
Kanhiya Lal travelled from the hotel of Shankar Maharaj to the scene of
offence. Bodu Lal identified the appellant in the identification parade and his
evidence as to the colour of baniyan worn by the appellant at the time of the
incident tallied with that of the one stained with human blood and recovered
from the accused. A knife stained with human blood also recovered from bis
person confirmed his ¥uilt. (860E-F, 86I·ll·Cl ff
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] l S.C.R

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 224
of 1974.
From the Judgment and Order Dated 8.1.73 of the Rajasthan
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 1970.
Naunit Lal & Kai/ash Vasdev. for the appellant.
B B.D. Sharma for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. Four persons were tried by the learned
Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, under section 302 read with section 34 of
the Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted three out of the four
accused and convicted only one of them, namely, Kanahiya Lal.
-
The High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction of Kanahiya
Lal, as also the acquittal of two out of the three persons who were
acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, set
aside the acquittal of the appellant, convicted him under section
D Ii 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to
life imprisonment.

Since the High Court has set aside an order of acquittal and
has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, it is necessary to
consider whether two views of the evidence are reasonably possible
E and whether, the High Court was justified in setting aside the order
of acquittal passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant.
Having approached the case and assessed the evidence from that
point of view, we are of the opinion that it is impossible to agree
with the view taken by the trial court. The High Court has
specifically dealt with reasons given by the trial court in support of
··--
F the order of acquittal and has demonstrated in a good measure as
to why those reasons cannot be accepted. We concur in the High
Court's appreciation of evidence.

The incident out of which the prosecution arose happened at
about 8 p.m. on September 29, 1968 at Bbilwara Rajasthan, leading
G to the death of one Gyanchand. The motive for the offence is
alleged to be that Gyanchand's brother, Nemi Chand, owed money
to accused Nos. 3 and 4, Ram Niwas and Badri Lal. Nemi Chand
was evading to pay the debt which created bitterness between the two
brothers on one hand and accused Nos. 3 and 4 on the other.
The latter, it is alleged, procured the help of the appellant and
H of Kanahiya Lal in doing Gyanchand to death.
llANWAR LAL v. RAiASTHAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 861

The prosecution examined a few witnesses in support of its A
case but it is unnecessary to refer to the evidence of each one of
them. The most important witness in the case is Bodu Lal (P.W. 2).
He is an independent witness, in whose cycle rickshaw the appellant
and the co-accused Kanahiya Lal travelled from the hotel of Shankar
Maharaj to the scene of offence. Bodu Lal identified the appellant B
in the identification parade. According to his evidence, the
appellant was wearing a yellow bariiyan at the time of the incident.
When the appellant was arrested. a yellow baniyan was found on

-
his person and it was stained with human blood. A knife stained
with human blood was also recovered from his person. . C

The High Court has convicted the appellant relying on the
evidence of Bodu Lal, as corroborated by the discovery of the blood
stained baniyan and knife. This evidence seems to us unassailable.
Accordingiy, we dismiss this appeal and confirm the jndgment of the D
High Court:

.,
S.R. Appeal dismissed.