Holding

A conviction cannot be upheld on the uncorroborated testimony of a sole eye‑witness where the evidence is riddled with inconsistencies, and an appellate court must not overturn an acquittal absent cogent reasons and a proper appreciation of the trial court's findings.

Summary

The appellants Ramji Surjya Padvi and Bhikji Surjya Padvi were charged under sections 302 and 34 of the IPC for the murder of Prabhat Singh. The trial court acquitted them, finding the sole eye‑witness, the victim's wife (PW‑2), unreliable due to contradictions, lack of corroboration, a 24‑hour delay in filing the FIR, and an implausible motive. The High Court reversed the acquittal, heavily criticizing the medical expert and convicting the appellants to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined whether a conviction can rest on uncorroborated testimony of a sole eye‑witness, the propriety of overturning an acquittal without cogent reasons, and the impact of the FIR delay and medical evidence on the reliability of the prosecution case. It held that the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence should not be lightly disturbed and that the witness’s testimony, marred by inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, was insufficient for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the trial court’s acquittal, and ordered the release of the appellants.

Issues considered

Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a sole eye‑witness without corroboration, especially when the witness is closely related to the victim?
Whether an appellate court may overturn a judgment of acquittal without providing cogent reasons and without respecting the trial court's appreciation of evidence.
Effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report on the reliability of the prosecution case.
Reliability of the medical expert's opinion on the time of death in the absence of supporting evidence.
Whether the alleged motive is sufficient to infer the guilt of the accused.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2

Subjects

sole eye witnesscorroborationappellate jurisdictiondelay in FIRmotivesection 302 IPCsection 34 IPCconviction reversalevidence evaluationmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittalSupreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act

Judgment

268

RAMJI StJRlY A & ANOTHER
A
v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

B 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,

c 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
D .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
E 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
F 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.
G 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".
H
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 A
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]
B
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
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 D
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 proper discussion in the E
judgment of the High Court about the various versions in the proseculion
evidence about the giving of the first information to the police in their true
perspective. The High Court has oVer-simplified this issue and. has observed.
"In this case, bearing in mind the place where the incident occurred, we find
no unreasonable delay in reporting the incident to the police out~post at
Molgi and subsequently in giving, the complaint at the Dhadgaon Police
Station°. It may be noted that the distance between Molgi and the village of
F
the deceased was hardly three miles but the 'khabar• ,reached the Molgi police
out post, according to the prosecution nearly 24 hours after tbe incident.
The reason given by the prosecution for this inordinate delay, that P.W. 2
did not want the information to be lodged with the police until the arrival of
her son P.W.· 1, is' hardly convincing since there are several different versions
about the lodging of the information with the police out post and the earlier G
versions of the crime said to have been given by P.W. 2 which were in writing
appear to have been suppressed. This important aspect of ·the case has been
overlooked by the High Court. It would be unsafe to act upon the evidence
of P.W. 2 and convict lhe appellants. [277 G, 278 A-C, 274 F-G, 279 A]

The comment by the High Court on the evidCnce of the doctor appCars H
to be more severe than what it should have been particularly when his opinion
that 'it was po~sible that the death in this parti~l,llar ca~e wa~ ~nstan,ta,neousi Is
not seriously challeng~d: {278 G-Hj
270' (1983} 3 s.c.R.

CR!MIN,;L APPELLATE.JURISDICTION: Criminal.Appeal· No. 429
4 of1980 .•

From the Judgment and Order dated the 21st December, 1979·
of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 1975.

M. N. Sharma for the Appellants. (Amicus Curiae).

J. S. Akartey and M.N. ·Shroff for the Respondent

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c VENKATARAMIAH, J. This Criminal Appeal under section 2 of
the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal . Appellate Jurisdiction)
Act, 1970 (Act No. 28 of 1970) is filed by two appellants Ramji
Surjya Padvi and Bhikji S)lrjya Padvi accused Nos. 2 and 4 in
Sessions Case No. 102 of 1974 on the file of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Dhulia against the judgment of the High Court· of Bombay
in Crimin.al Appeal No. 467 of 1975 by which it. reversed the.judg-
ment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court on a charge under
section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and·. imposed ;the.sentence
of rigorous imprisonment for life on each of them ~fter holding them
guilty of the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts of the case are these: Damji (accussed No. I), Ramji
(accussed No. 2) and Bhikji (accused No. 4) are the sons of Surjya
Tulya Padvi (accused No. 3). Accused Nos. I to 4 are residents of
a village called Veri in taluka Akkalkuwa.. The said village was by
F the side ofa rivercalledMotbi Nadi. In,th,:month of March, 1974,
one .Prabhat .Singh (the deceased) a resident of Mojapada which is a
hamlet of Bhagdari. village within the limits of Dhadgaon police
station bad. grown watermelons on. a portion of the bed of the Motbi
Na4l r'i~er near the. village, Veri. The distance be_tweel).. the place
G where watermelons had been grov.:n by the decease!) and, his village
was about two miles. It is.the case of the pro_secµtion thai during
the last week of March, 1974, the deceased' Prabhat Singh and ·his
wife, Surjabhai (P.W. 2) were staying in a hut which they had
constructed near the place where they had grown watermelons in order
H to keep wa):ch over the watermelon crop.. They. used. to cook their
food· in the hut. On Marc)l 26,. 1974. at, about 9,00 P,M. when
Prabhat Singh was lying on a- cot inside the hut, Surjajlai was sitting
011tsi4e near an agiti in which she bad kept fire. and· was warmine
RAMii SURJYA .v. MAH>\RASHTRA' (Venkataramioh, J.) 27l

herself.. It is the case. of. the prosecution, that· at that r time,•. the Joun·
accused. persons referred . to above came there . and when. they.. were A
questioned. by. Surjabai, they told that they... had. come. to.smoke.
tobacco. At that time.accused No.. 2;Ramji. was armed· with an, axe.
The· accused did not, however, stay there for· the purpose ofsmoking,
but suddenly entered.the hut where accused Nos.!, 3 and 4, Damji,.,
Surjya and .Bhikj~ caught hold of Pra_bhat Singh. and. Ramji (accused.,
No .. 2) gave a number of blows with an axe- on: the head,. face.an<!, B
neck.of Prabhat Singh. Thereafter they ran away. Surjabai out .of..
fear went. near a big stone in a nearby hillock and concealed.hersel(
behind. it. She continued.it sit there for some time .and.on- returning
to the scene of ·occurrence. she foun<l. that her. husband_ had died••
Thereafter she·. went to her, village.in, the, early bouts , of MarGh'27,
1974 and-narrated the. incident to her, daughter-in,Ja;v. Bharatibai-
c
(P.W. 3)inthepresenceof two. of her servants Bapu. aud.Arsh~a .
. who have not been examined in· the:case. It is stated. that. she. sent
another servant of her's Ba manya (P. W. 8) . to go to a.. village .called
Nala·gavi where· her son, Ra tan· Singh (P.W. i) had gone on .the
previous day to fetch.him. She thereafter sent for G.umba (P.W. 5) n·
who was formerly, the Police Patil of her village and.narrated;before
him the incident in which her .husband. had been, killed.. 1t .is stated
that she mentioned the names of the .four. accused·.as tlJe.aosailants to.
P.W. 3 Bharatibai as well as·1o Gumba (P.W. 5). It.is furtheutated
·that Sµrjabai, Gumba, Bharatibai and the two servants, ,Bapu, an.cl
E
Arshya and some others went to the place where the dea<l. body of.
Prabhat Singh was lying. They. also sent for Detka (P.W. 9) who
was the Police Patil at that time. Ratan Singh, according to the.
prosecution, reached the place at about 5.00 P.M: on being informed
by Bamanya (P.W. 8) about the incident, Surjabai narrated the
whole story again before Ratan ·Singh (P.W. I). Thereafter P.W. I F
went to. the village Molgi where there was a police out. post alongwith
.Detka (P.W. 9) and orally mentioned to the Head Constable by
name Keva) Bedse (P.W. 13) about the incident. P.W. 13' prepared'
the out post 'khabar' (Exh. 36) in the prescribed form and sent
P.W. I Rat~n Singh alongwith the out post khabar to the Police
Station-at· Dhadgaon.. P.W. 13« thereafter lefr for; the, scene of G
occurrence te keep watch' over the dead· body. Ratan. Singh· is stated·
to· have hired-_a jeep and gone to Dhadgaon and·! reached that place•
at about 2.115 A.M. on March· 28, 1974:· There he. met the.police
Sub Inspector at the Police Station. and made· a statement (Exh.. JO)
H
before him.. which was recorded by him In. that statement he.
· )larratedwbat he IJad IJeard from his motji.er at ;ibout.5.00•P.M; on
272' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983l 3 s.c.R.
March 27, 1974. In th.at statement, the names of the four accused
are found as the assailants. Thereafter the police Sub Inspector
came to the spot on the morning of March 28, 1°974 and carried on
further investigation. He arrested the accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the
evening of March 28, 1974 accused No. 4 on the next day and after
completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against them
B for an ·offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Pena'
Code. The learned Sessions Judge who tried the case disbelieved
the case of the prosecution that Surjabai was an eye witness of the
occurrence and acquitted the accused: Against the said judgment
of acquittal, the State Government preferred an appeal before the
High Court. It would appear that during the pendency of the
c appeal, accused No. I, Damji and accused No. 3, Surjya had died.
This fact perhaps was not brought to the notice of the High Court.
Before the High Court, the accu{ed were represented by an amicus
curiae. The High Court set aside the judgment of acquitt~l and
convicted all the accused including accused No. I and •·xused No. 3,
who had died earlier, under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
D
and imposed on each of them the sentence o\ imprisonment for life.
Against the judgment of the High Court, accused No. 2 and accused
No. 4 preferred this appeal before this Court. When the appeal
came up for admission, by an order made by .this Court on August
. 18, 1989, the appeal of Bhikji (accused No. 4) was dismiso;ed. The
notice of appeal was issued only in so far as Ramji (accused No. 2)
was concerned.

Shri M. N. Sharma who has appeared in this case as amicus
curiae has raised among others two points before us-(1) that the
F case of the prosecution was a concocted one and (2) that in any
event since it was not possible to say that two opinions were not
possible about the guilt of the accused, it was not opi;n to the
High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal of the Sessions
·Court.
G
We shall first deal with the manner in which first information
was given to the police in this case. It is true that in the statement
(Exh. JO) of Ratan Singh (P.W. 1) which is stated to have been
recorded at 2.15 A.M. on March 28, 1974 at the Dhadgaon Police
Station· we find the names of all the four accused and a brief des-
H
cription of the incident which is alleged to have been narrated by
Surjabai (P..W. 2) at abont 5.00 P.M. on March 27, 1974 before
Ratan Singh (P.W. 1), Wi\a\ value should!be attached to the contents
RAMii SURJYA v. MAHARASHTRA (Venkataramiah, J.) 273

of this document depends on the evidence in the case. According
to the prosecution, th.e incident took place at. about 9.00 P.M. on
March 26, 1974. Surjabai (P.W. 2) is stated to be the sole-witness
of the crime. She is stated to .have disclosed all the particulars
relating to the incident on the morning of March 27, 1974 to
I
-"{ Bharatibai (P.W. 3) and some others as stated above. Surjabai has
stated in the course of her deposition that she had told the Police
B
Patil that she wanted a complaint to be lodged, thereafter the Police
Patil wrote something and that writing was taken by Ratan Singh
(P.W. I) to Molgi where the police out post was situated. She has
also stated that she had instructed the Police Patil ·and others that
nobody should go to lodge a complaint till the arrival of her son,
Ratan Singh (P.W. 1). The writing referred to above which accord· c
ing to the events disclosed in the prosecution case is the first docu- .
ment containing the gist of the version of Surjabai regarding the
incident. That document is not forthcoming in the case. Bharatibai.
(P.W. 3) hasa different version to give about the lo\lging of the
complaint. She has stated in her cross-examination : "My mother-
D
in-law Surjabai had told Gumba, Police Patil that he could lodge
complaint of murder. This was state4 to him at about breakfast
time in the morning. Immediately thereafter Police Patil Gumba
had gone to lodge a complaint. Van Singh Sarpanch and Tap Singh
had gone alongwith Police Patil to lodge complaint. They returned
at about 12 Noon after filing complaint ai Molgi". This complaint E
cannot be the same· which is referred to earlier because the earlier
complaint according to P.W. 2 Surjabai was the one which was taken
by Ratan Singh (P.W. I) to Molgi. The complaint referred to by
P.W. 3 Bharatibai is a complaint which was prepared at about noon
by Police Patil Gumba (P.W. 5) and lodged by him at Molgi at about
12.00 noon.long before the arrival of Ratan Singh at the scene o.f F
occurrence. This complaint is also not forthcoming. Gumba (P.W.
5) who is a former Police Patil denies .that Surjabai (P.W. 2) had
told him to go and lodge a complaint. He has stated that he had
received information about the murder in the morning, he did n'ot
go to lodge a comp.Iain! as Detka (P.W. 9) was the Police Patil and G
that when Surjabai narrated before Police Patil Detka the particulars
of the incident, he asked Police Patil Detka (P. W. 9). that he should
go to lodge a complaint. This happened according to him at about
2 P.M. on March 27, 1974. P.W, 9 Detka says that he went to the
place of occurrence at about 1.30 P.M. on March 27, 1974 where H
the dead body was !yins and he stayed there.. awaiting the arrival of
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS fl983J 3 s.c.ll.

Ratan Singh (P.W. 1) who reached that place by 5:CO P.M. and
thereafter he and Ratan Singh went to Molgi police out post where
the head constable prepared the occurrence report. He says that be
reached Molgi at about sun-set time but the khabar report. (Exh. 36)
prepared by the head constable at Molgi shows that the 'khabar'
was givan to him at 21 hours i.e. 9.00 P.M. on March 27, 1974.
Ratan Singh (P.W. 1) who is stated to have given that khabar says
B
that he reached Molgi at about 8.00 or 8.30 P.M. and gave the
information contained in the khabar report. The first information
stated to have been recorded by the police, under section 154 of the
Criminal Procedure Code is stated to be the one taken down at the
Police Station at Ohadga~n (E~h. 10) at 2.15 A.M. on March 28, ,
c 1974.

A close examination of the above evidence shows that accord-
ing to Surjabai (P. W. 2) there was a document prepared by Gumba
D (P.W. 5) in the morning of March 27, 1974 containing the infor•
mation given by her which was later on taken by Ratan Singh
(P:w. 1). Then according t<>" Bharatibai (P.W. 3) there was a docu-
ment which was prepared by Gumba at about 12.0.0 Noon which he
took to 'Molgi and lodged it with the Molgi police out post. Accord-
E ing to P. W. 9 Police Patil Detka, the information was given at the
police out post at about sun-set time i.e. at about 6.30 P.M. The
khabar report itself shows that it was received at 9·.oo P.M. on March
27, 1974 and the first information is stated to have been recorded
at 2.15 A.M. on March 28, J974. In this case the prosecution
have attempted in the course of the evidence to explain away the
F delay in giving the information to the police out post which was
nearly 24 hours from the time at which the occurrence is stated to
have taken place by stating that Surjabai (PW. 2) did not want such
information to be lodged with the police until the. arrival of Ratan
Singh which, according to the prosecution, took ,place at 5 P.M. on
G March 27, 1974. The attempt of the prose~ution to explain away
the delay has failed in the instant case since we have several different
versions about the lodging of the information with the police out
post and the earlier versions of the crime said to have been given by
Surjabai which were in writing appear to have been suppressed in
H ihis case. This extraordinary delay ih giving the first information
to the police in the present case which, has not been properly
explained cann,o( but be vjewed with suspician,
RAMJI SURJYA v. MAHARASHTRA (Venkataramiah, J.) 275

The motive for the crime is stated to be that the plot on which
the deceased had grown watermelons was being used by accused A
No. 2 Ramji some years before the incident to grow onions and
· that there was a quarrel about 8 or 10 days prior to the incident
between accused No. 2 and Ratan Singh (P.W. I). The land in
question being a part of the river bed did not belong to accused
No. 2 and he was not cultivating there for about 2 or 3 years before
B
the incident. The land was probably getting submerged during rainy
season. Accused No. 2 could not, therefore, be considered as being
in possession of that plot when the deceased commenced cultivation.
There is also no evidence showing that accused No. 2 had raised any
objection when watermelon seeds were actually planted. In the
circumstances, the motive suggested does not appear to be strong c
enough for the four accused joining together to commit the murder
of the deceased.

While there could be no doubt about the homicidal character
of the death of the deceased, the learned Sessions Judge who heard
D
the evidence of Surjabai (P.W. 2) held that the details of the incident
given by her were imaginary or improbable and, therefore, un-
believable. Some of the inherent contradictions in her evidence are
these : In her evidence she has stated that she was sitting outside
the hut near a place where she had kept fire (agiti) at about 9.00 E
P.M. and she saw from there all that took place inside the hut when
her husband was assaulted by the accussed. She has even given the
role played by each of them. She has stated that while accused
Nos. 1, 3 and 4 hel.d the deceased, accused No. 2 assualted him
repeatedly with the axe he had brought. The sketch of the scene of
occurrence (Exh. P. 4) shows that the fire place was to the South of F
the hut but the hut had an opening towards the East only. She
could not, therefore, have seen the actual assualt from the place.
where she is stated to be sitting. It is also noteworthy that the only
source of light at the time of the incident was the fire s~id to have
been ignited by Surjabai (P.W. 2). It is difficult to believe t,hat slie G
could in that light identify the accused, the arms they were carrying
and the clothes they were wearing about which she has tried to give
detailed description in her evidence. Her answer that she had put
more fuel in order to have more light so that she could identify the
accused properly appears to be bit artificial. She, however, has H
admitted that it bad become dark even when they were taking food
earlier. .It iS'also strange that she did not try to resist the attack on
lter.husbarn;l. lt is furt)ler seen that in Exl!. IO, th~ first information,
276 SUPllBMB COURT REPORTS [I 983j 3 s.c.ll.

it is stated that she had told Ratan Singh (P.W. I) that at the time .
A of the incident she was chit-chatting with her husband but in her
-deposition she has stated that the deceased had fallen asleep at the
time of the incident. The doctor (P.W. 6) has stated that the cause
of the death was due to severe bleeding due to ·the cutting of the
tight carotid artery, It is also in evidence that the blood of the
B. deceased had been splashed all-round, but it is stated by Surjabai
(P.W. 2) that no even a single stain of blood was found on her
clothes. Ordinarily on such an occasion a wife whos,, husband is
· murdered would come into close contact with the body of her
husband and her clothes would become blood stained. In the instant
case there was no means of avoiding such stains also as there was
c ·darkness all-round where the incident is stated to have taken place.
The absence of blood stains on the clothes of Surjabai (P.W. 2)
suggests that she could not have been present at the scene at the
time of occurrence. The statement found in Exh. P. Ill and also in
her deposition that she was hiding on a hillock during that night
out of fear is contradicted by the evidence of Bharatibai (P.W. 3)
D that Surjabai (P.W. 2\ had told her:that she was in the hut throughout
till she returned home. We may also not here that according to
Ratan Singh (P.W. I) the son of the deceased they had engaged
about seven 'annual' servants to work on their fields and one of
them was Bamanya (P.W. 8) who had gone to fetch him from
Nalagavi villoge where he had gone to see his son who was studying
in Ashram School.· None of the servants had been asked to stay at
·-
the hut alongwith the deceased but only Surjabai (P.W. 2) is stated
to be present af the scene of occurrence. The distance between the
village of Surjabai (P.W. 2) and the scene of occu.rrence' was about
1 l/2 miles according to the evidence of Ratan Singh (P.W. 1). If
F that was so, it is not known why Surjabai did not run to the village
immediately after the incident took place, instead of running towards
the hiJlock and returning to the village next morning.

G There is no 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 iu support of
H the testimony of a solitary witness particularly where such witness
also happens to be closely related to the deceased and the accused
are those against whom some motive or illwill is suggested. Now in
tile insta(lt c!lse a careful analysis of the evi\lepce relatin~ to th~
ilA:wi SURIYA v. MAHARASHTRA CVenkataramiah, J.) 217

inordinate delay involved in the giving of the first information to the
police and the other inherent inconsistencies in the evidence· of the A
sole eye witness i. e. Surjabai (P. W.2) shows that her evidence cannot
be considered as sufficient to fiind the accused gui ty. The first
information (Exh. P. JO) itself appears to be one prepared after some
deliberation. The role attributed to Gumba (P.W.5) the former
Police Patil in the prosecution exidence compels the Court to look
B
for corroboration from the other prosecution evidence before
accepting the evidence of Surjabai (P.W.2).

The accused Nos. I to 3 were arrested on March 28, 1974.
The axe and clothes recovered on March 28, I 974 itself on the basis
of the statement of accused No. 2 and of accused No. 3 had no
·c
blood stains according to the report of the Assisstant Chemical
Analyser to Government (Exh. 39). The house of accused No. 1. was
not searched on that day even though there was no impediment for
doing so. His house was searched on the next day when a dhoti
said to contain some blood stain was found with him. The delay in· D
the recovery of this dhoti was considered by the learned Sessions
Judge as affecting the evidentiary value of the said recovery. Similarly
·the blood stains said to be on a banian seized from the person of
accused No. 4 when he was arrested on March 29, 1974 was conside-
red by the Sessions Judge as not possessing any corroborative value
again on account of the interval between the time of occurrence and E
the time of recovery. The learned Sessions Judge felt that the
evidence of Surjabai could not be accepted without any further
corroboration. The learned Sessions Judge also felt that the evidence
of the other prosecution witnesses snch as Gumba (P.W.5), Police
Patil Detka (P.W.9) and Ratan Singh (P. W. l) could not be safely
F
relied on as furnishing corroboration to the statement of Surjabai
(P.W.2) in view of the several circumstances narrated in his judg-
ment. The evidence of motive also was found to be discrepant by the
learned Sessions Judge. Accorcting"y he acquitted all the ·accused.

The High Court which was hearing an appeal against a
G
judgment of.acquittal has not bestowed due care on the principles
governing its jurisdiction. While there is no doubt that .the jurisdiction
of an appellate court is coextensive with that of the trial court, in .the
case of an appeal against a judgment of acquittal it cannot totally
JI
brush "'ide the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court. The
reasons for reversing a judgment of acquittal should be cogent and
if two views are reasonably possible, the appellate court should be
218 $UPRilME COUR'r REPORTS [i9S3] ~ S.C.R·
slow in interfering with the judgment of the trial court, even· if it is
A possible for it to take a different view after a process of laborious
reasoning. We do not find a proper discussion in the judgment of the
High Court about the various versions in the prosecution evidence
about the giving of the first information to the police, which we have
pointed out above, in their true perspective. The High Court has
over-simplified this issue and bas observed : "Jn this case, bearing in
B mind the place where the incident occurred, we find no unreasonable
delay in reporting the incident to the police out post• at Molgi and
subsequently in giving the complaint at the Dhad:gaon Police
Station''. It may be noted that the distance between Molgi and
the,village of the deceased was hardly three miles but the 'khabar'
c reached the Molgi police out post, according to the prosecution,
nearly 24 hours after the incident. The reason given by the prosecu-
tion for this inordinate delay is hardly convincing. This important
aspect of the case has been overlooked by the High Court.

There is one other circumstance to which reference may be
D made here. The doctor (P.W.6) who had conducted the :post mortem
examination of the body of the deceased gave evidence stating that
the death of the deceased could not have taken place soon after the
dinner as he did not find any food particles in the stomach or the
small intestines of the deceased. He opined that by the time of the
E death of the deceased at least four hours must have passed after his
·taking food. There being nothing highly incongruous about this
statement, the learned Sessions Judge had observed iu his
judgment that the evidence of Surjabai (P.W. 2) that she had served
food for the decea•ed at about 8.30 P.M. could not be accepted as
probable as the fatal assault had taken place at about 9.00 P.M.
F But the High Court has severely criticised the ·evidence of this
doctor observing that : "our impression is that he hardiy knows what
he is talking about and what is extraordinary is 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
G adverse or in favour of the prosecution from the opinion _evidence
of such a poorly qualified medical witness". This comment by the
High Court on the evidence of· the doctor appears to be more
severe than what it should have been particularly when his opinion
that 'it was possible that the death in this particular case was
H instantaneous' is not seriously challenged. In the circumstances of
this case, the scope for exaggeration on the part of the prosecution
witnesses. involving innocent persons cannot also be ruled out. As
we have poninted out earlier, the High Court has missed some
iw.in si:iRJVA v. MAHARAS'.HTRA (Venkataramiah, /.) t-79
important discrepanCies in the prosecution case. Bearing in mind the
·well-settled principles governing a case of this nature we feel that it A
would be unsafe to act upon the evidence of Surjabai (P.W.2) and
convict the accused. In the circumstances, the High Court was in
error in upsetting the verdict of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
We, therefore, hold that the appeal of Ramji Surjya Padvi accused
No. 2 (appellant No. I) should be allowed.
B
Having reached tbe· above conclusion, we foe! that ends of
justice require that we should suo motu recall the order dismissing the
appeal of Bhikji Surjya Padvi accused No. 4 (appellant No. 2) in this
appeal and acquit him also. We accordingly review the order dated
· August 18, 1980 of this Court dismissing his appeal and restore his
appeal to the file. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel c
for the State fairly conceded that if the appeal of accused No. 2 is to
be allowed, accused No. 4 should also be released.

In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of
accused Nos. 2 and 4 (appellants Nos. I and 2) Ramj1 Surijya Padvi D
and Bhikji Surjya Padvi under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and the sentences of imprisonment for life imposed on thein
by the High Court and restore the judgmeQI of acquittal passed by
the trial court. Accused No. 2· and accused No. 4, the appellants
herein shall be released forthwith.

-- H.S.K. Appeal allowed.
E