Holding

The acquittal of Kulwant Singh cannot be faulted; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The State of Punjab prosecuted Kulwant Singh (alias Kanta) for three murders and one attempt to murder that occurred in a marriage palace, leading the trial court to convict him under IPC s.302 and s.307 and award death. The High Court acquitted him, citing irregularities such as a month-long delay in recording the sole eye‑witness (PW‑6) statement, abnormal delay in lodging the FIR, non‑examination of a key informant (MS), and lack of explanation for the injuries on the accused. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of appellate power under CrPC s.378 and reiterated that a High Court may review an acquittal but must do so only when substantial and compelling reasons exist. The Court found that the High Court had properly considered the evidentiary deficiencies and that no such compelling reasons justified overturning the acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the High Court's exercise of power under CrPC s.378 to review the trial court's conviction and acquit the accused
Whether the delay in recording the eye‑witness statement, FIR filing, and non‑examination of key witnesses vitiated the prosecution's case
Whether the injuries on the accused required explanation sufficient to sustain a conviction

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 366, s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

murderacquittalappellate reviewCrPC s.378evidentiary delaywitness testimonydeath sentencepresumption of innocence

Judgment

[2008) 10 S.C.R. 1075
-.
STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
KULWANT SINGH @ KANTA
(Criminal Apepal No. 493 of 2001)
,;--- . -( JULY 16, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND DR.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ]

Penal Code, 1860:
s; 302 - Murder- Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by c
High Court - HELD: Statement of sole eye-witness recorded
affer about a· month - No explanation by prosecution in this
regard - Investigating Officer also not examined - High Court
found abnormal delay in filing the FIR and the person who
,)-
informed the informant also not examined - Injuries on ac- D
cused, on facts of case, were required to be explained - Ac-
quittal directed by High Court cannot be faulted - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
E
s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Powers of appellate
court - Discussed.
The respondent was prosecuted for commission of
~
offences punishable u/ss 302 and 307 IPC. The prosecu-
tion case was that PW-4 owned a 'Marriage Palace' and F
the three deceased, the respondent and PW-6 were em-
ployed by him in the said marriage palace. On the infor-
mation of one 'MS' who was given the work of construct-
ing sheds in the marriage palace, PW-4 along with his
brother and the said 'MS' went to the marriage palace at G
.,.;. about 7.00 A.M. on 27.8.1996 and saw that bodies of two
servants were burning there and the third one was lying
dead in the adjoining room. They saw PW-6, the
chowkidar, lying unconscious in the ground of the mar-
1075 H
.
..
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
t

A riage palace. He was sentto the Civil Hospital with 'MS'.
Thereafter they found the respondent lying inside the
marriage palace. They got him also admitted in the Civil
Hospital. Since no injury was found on the person of the
respondent, he was suspected to have committed the ")-~-

B crime. He was interrogated by the police and at his in-
stance his shirt and pant stained with blood and ohe iron
rod concealed in the marriage palace were said to have
been recovered. The trial court found him guilty of com-
mitting the three murders and awarded him death sen-
c tence. However, the High Court acquitted him of the
charges.
In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was con-
tended for the appellant that the High .Court erred in inter-
fering with the well reasoned and elaborate judgment of
D the trial court.
...;..__ ---

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is to be noted that the pivotal witness
was PW-6. He claimed to be an eye-witness. In that sense,
E this was not a case where prosecution relied on circum-
stantial evidence. The High Court found that this· witness
was examined after about a month of the incident. The
only explanation offered was that the witness was hospi-
talized and was lying in unconscious state for about one
>-
F week. Even if that be so, no explanation was offered as to
why after PW-6 was released from the hospital he was
not examined for about.three weeks. The investigating
offic~r who could have thrown light on this aspect was
not examined. No reason was indicted for such non-ex-
amination: [para ·s] [1083 A-C]
G
1.2 The other relevant factor is that the alleged inci- · ,\.._

dent took place around 12 midnight. The information was
lodged at about 8.30 a.m. The High Court found that there
was abnormal delay in lodging· the FIR. The prosecution
H· case was that the informant (PW4) was told by 'MS' around
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1077
.I -+ KANTA

7 .00 a.m. and some time was spent for taking the injured A
person to the hospital and thereafter the FIR was lodged
and, therefore, there was in fact no delay. It is to be noted
that the High Court found that the said 'MS' w;is not ex-
,>- - -I' amined as a witness. His evidence would have thrown
considerable light as to whether and when he informed B
the informant as claimed. He is supposed to have taken
PW-6 to the hospital. His non-examination has been
rightly taken note of to be a vulnerable factor by the High
Court. [para 5) [1083 D -1084 B]
1.3 There are certain other aspects which need to be c
noted. PW-6 was stated to have been taken to the hospi-
tal at 7 .15 A.M. The doctor attending to him sent informa-
·•
. _

Ar"
tion to the SHO of the concerned Police Station at 7 .15
a.m . Interestingly, the respondent was taken to the hos-
pital at 8.30 a.m. It has not been explained by the pros- D
ecution as to why there was delay in sending the respon-
dent-accused to the hospital. [para 5] [1083 B-D]
1.4 Besides, the factor which has weighed with the
High Court to direct acquittal was non-explanation of in-
juries on the accused. Though, non-explanation of the E
minor injuries could not be a factor to make the prosecu-
tion version vulnerable in all cases, but if the injuries were
of serious nature the prosecution has to explain that as-
-~ pect. In the instant case, the evidence of the doctor who
examined the accused clearly stated that the injuries were F
on account of dragging him on surface littered with bro-
ken glasses. In that background the injuries on the ac-
cused had to be explained. [para 5 and 6] [1084 E-G]
2. Having a complete retrospect on all tl=le earlier judg-

-
G
ments, this Court in Chandrapp's case* has culled down
_,.+
the principles regarding the power of the appellate court
while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquit-
tal. Accordingly, the acquittal as directed by the High Court
cannot be faulted. Even though it may be possible hypo-
H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A thetically to take a different view on the evidence, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the view of the High
Court. [para 13-14] [1078 A-8 1089 A-8]
Case Law Reference
s Sheo Swarup & others Vs. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC
227- referred to. [para 7]
Nur Mohammad V Emperor AIR 1954 PC 151- referred
to. [para 8]

c Prandas V State AIR 1954 SC 36 - referred to. [para 8]
Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra 1955 (2) SCR
I,._
1285 - relied on. [para 8]
7-
Sanwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1961 (3) SCR 120 - ...}
D relied on. [para 8] ~

M. G Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra 1963 (2) SCR 405 -
relied on. [para 1O]
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1973) 2 sec 793 - relied on. [para 11]
E
K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 (2)
SCR 363 - relied on. [para 12]

F
Ramesh Babu Lal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat JT 1996(6)
SC 79 - relied on [para 13] ,
George Vs. State of Kera/a AIR 1998 SC 1376- relied
on [para 13]
Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484 -

G
relied on. [para 13]
-
Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of MP J7 2002(3)
SC 38( - relied on .. [para 13]
-.\--. ..
Kallu Vs~ State of M.P JT 2006(12) SC-;586 - relied on.
[para 13]
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1079
~ -+ KANTA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

*Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007(2) A
SCR 630=2007 (4) SCC 415 - relied on. [para 13]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 493 of 2001
.,..._ .__,
From the Judgment and Order dated 24A.2000 of the High 8
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
121-DB/1998
Ajay Pal, Rohit Walecha and Kuldip Singh for the Appel-
lant.
C'
Kawajit Kochar, Sweta and Kusum Chaudhary for the Re-
spondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge by the State of D
Punjab in this appeal is to the acquittal of the respondent from
the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The
learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, had convicted the respon-
dent for the said offence and awarded death sentence. In view
E
of the award of the death sentence, reference was made to the
High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').
2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
-~
Law was set on motion on the basis of the statement made F
by Parminder Singh (PW4) who stated that he is running a mar-
riage palace known as Chahal Marriage Palace on Malout
Road, at Muktsar. Ashok Kumar Lalji Tiwari and Sham Sunder
sons of Sager Ram, residents of Gangoli Khurd; Distt. Gaunda
[U.P.] and Kulwant Singh alias Kanta son of Mohinder Singh G
_,...+-
were employed by him as servants in that marriage palace.
Gurpal Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, was employed as
Chowkidar in the said marriage palace. There was a function in
the marriage palace on the evening of 26.8.1996. Manjit Singh
Mistri, resident of Malout alongwith other labourers was con- H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
-t (

A structing sheds in that marriage palace for the last many days.
After the conclusion of the function he went to his house and
told his servants to look after the property of the marriage pal-
ace. On 2.7.8.1996 at about 7.00 AM. Manjit Singh Mistri came
to his house and told him that smell was coming· out of the rooms
B of the marriage palace. Hearing this he alongwith his brother -~
Parminder Singh and Mistri Manjit Singh went to the marriage
palace and saw that smoke was coming out of the marriage
palace. He alongwith Raminder Singh and Manjit Singh Mistri
saw from the back side door of the marriage palace that the
c dead bodies of Ashok Tiwari and Sham Sunder (hereinafter
referred to as deceased by name) were burning there. They
also saw that pieces of glass were scattered in the lobby of the
marriage palace and Lalji Tiwari (hereinafter referred to as de-
ceased by name) was lying dead in the adjoining room and
there were mark of injuries on his head and the blood was com- ...._
D
ing out of the injuries. When they came out, they saw that Gurpal
Singh Chowkidar was lying unconscious in the grassy ground
of the marriage palace and his head was stained with blood. A
vehicle was arranged and Gurpal Singh was sent to the Civil
Hospital, Muktsar, with Manjit Singh. He along with his brother
E Raminder Singh went inside and when Kulwant Singh moved a
little, thinking that he was alive, they picked him up and got.him
admitted in the Civil Hospital. He left his brother Raminder Singh
with the dead bodies. He suspected that the offence was com-
mitted by respondent-Kulwant Singh alias Kanta due to some
f-
F grievance. There was no injury on the body of Kulwant Singh
and three persons had been murdered and the fourth was lying
in serious condition, as such it appeared that it was an act of
Kulwant Singh. After the registration of the case S.I. Beant Singh,
who was posted as_ S.H.O. in Police Station City Muktsar, at
G that time, alongwith ASI Ravel Singh, A&I Gurmel Singh and
other officials and Parminder Singh went to the place of occur-
-~
rence. Raminder Singh (PWS) was found present near the dead
bodies. Inquest reports of Lalji Tiwari, Ashok Kumar and Sham
Sunder were prepared.There were hairs in the right hand of the
dead body and piece ~f cloth in the left hand of Lalji Tiwari. The
r-
H I
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1081
I + KANTA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

dead bodies along with the requests were sent for post mortem A
examination through ASI Gurmel Singh. S.I. Beant Singh in-
spected the place of occurrence. One bed sheet stained with
blood, blood stained earth were picked up from the bed room
where the dead body of Lalji Tiwari was lying. These were made
;,
- into parcels and sealed with the seal bearing mark 'BS' and the B
parcels were taken into possession. Pieces of glass were
picked up from the lobby and they were made into parcel and
were taken into possession. Ashes were picked up from the
room where the dead bodies of Sham Sunder and Ashok Kumar
were lying. These were made into parcel and sealed with the c
seal bearing impression 'BS' and were taken into possession.
Burnt mat was picked up and made into parcel and taken into
possession. Blood stained earth was picked up from the place
where the Chowkidar was lying. The same was made into par-
eel and sealed with the seal bearing mark 'BS' and taken into
~ D
possession. Blood stained ashes were also picked up and
made into parcel and sealed with the ~eal bearing mark 'BS'.
Rough site plan of the place of occurrerfoe was prepared. State-
ments of the PWs were recorded. Then Beant Singh S.I. went
to the Hospital. Accused Kulwant Singh, who was admitted in
the hospital was interrogated and on interrogation he disclosed E
that he had kept concealed one iron rod, his shirt and pant
stained with blood underneath the empty cement bags lying in
the store of marriage palace and he could get the same recov-
ered. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded.
-f
Then the accused was got discharged from the Hospital. After F
that the accused in accordance with his disclosure statement
got recovered an iron rod, pant and shirt stained with blood. A
separate parcel of the iron rod and another parcel of the pant
and shirt were prepared and the same were taken into posses-
sion. Before making the parcel of the shirt a piece was taken G
out of the same and was taken into possession. After the post
~
mortem examination ASI Gurmel Singh produced the belong-
ings of the deceased and these were taken into possession
after making into parcel. On return to the Police Station the case
property was deposited with the M.H.C. On 30.8.1996 the ac- H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A cused was taken to the Hospital where a sample of his hairs
was taken by or: Meena Jagga, made into a parcel and sealed
by the doctor and the said parcel was taken into possession.
On return to the Police Station the case property was depos-
ited with the M.H.C. The parcels of the hair, pant, shirt of the
s accused, chadar, blood which were picked up from near the
bed, burnt pieces of cloth and the soil picked up from near the
place where Gurpal Singh was lying and pieces of cloth of the
shirt and the parcel of iron rod were sent to the Forensic Sci-
ence Laboratory and the reports regarding the same were re-
c ceived. Statements of the PWs were recorded and after the
completion of the investigation the accused was sent up for trial.
' .
The charge against the accused was for the alleged com-
mission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for hav-
ing committed the murders of Sham Sunder, Lalji Tiwari and
D Ashok Kumar and under Section 307 l.P.C. for causing injuries
"*-- I
to Gurpal Singh was framed on 16.1.1997. The accused
pleaded innocence and,claimed trial.
The prosecution to prove its case against the accused ex-
E amined Dr. P.N. Girdhar (PW1), Dr. Meena Jagga (PW2), Dr.
Madan Gopal Sharma (PW3}, Parminder Singh (PW4),.
Raminder Singh (PWS}, Gurpal Singh (PW6), Baljit 'Singh
(PW?), Beant Singh S.I. (PW8), Kulwant Chand M.H.C. (PW9),
Constable Harbans Lal as (PW10), Constable Balwindar Singh
(PW11) and ASI Gurmel Singh (PW12). The reports of the Fo-
F rensic Science Laboratory Ex.P.GG, Ex.P.HH, Ex.P.JJ and
Ex.P.KK have also been tendered iri evidence.
The trial Court found that the evidence on record which
was substantial in nature clearly established the guilt of the ac-
G cused as there were three persons who had lost their lives and,
therefore, the death sentence was awarded~ In appeal, the High
Court upset the conviction and directed acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellate-State submitted that
this was a case where the accusations were established, against
H the accused and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1083
KANTA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

interfering with the well-reasoned and elaborate judgment of the A
trial Court.
4. In response, learned counsel for the accused-respon-
dent supported the judgment of the High Court.
5. It is to be noted that the pivotal witness was PW-6. He s
claimed to be an eye-witness. In that sense, this was not a case
where prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. The High
Court found that this witness was examined after about a month
of the incident. The only explanation offered was that the wit-
ness was hospitalized and was lying in unconscious state for c
about one week. Even if that be so, no explanation was offered
as to why after PW-6 was released from the hospital he was not
examined for about three weeks. The investigating officer who
could have thrown light on this aspect was not examined. No
reason was indicted for such non-examination. The other rel-
0
evant factor is that the alleged incident took place around 12
midnight. The information was lodged at about 8.30 a.m. PW-
4 stated that he learnt about the incident from Manjit Singh Mistri
at about 7.00 a.m. and when he went to the place of occurrence
he found dead bodies of two persons. From the back side of
the hall he found that dead bodies of the two deceased per- E
sons were burnt. He noticed this aspect alongwith his brother
Raminder Singh and Manjit Singh Mistri. The respondent-ac-
cused was lying on scattered pieces of gross in the lobby in
front of the adjoining bed room. Blood was oozing from his in-
jured head. On coming out he found Gurpal Singh (PW-6) lying F
unconscious on the grassy ground. He made arrangements for
sending Gurpal Singh to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar alongwith
Majjit Singh Mistri. He went inside and when he saw that the ~
accused-respondent was alive, he was also sent to the Civil
Hospital, Muktsar. After that he claimed to have gone to the Police G
Station to lodge the report. The High Court found that there was
· abnormal delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for the ap-
pellate-State submitted that the informant Parminder Singh
(PW4) was told by Manjit Singh around 7.00 a.m. and some
time was spent for taking the injured person to the hospital and H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A -thereafter. the FIR was lodged and,Jherefore, there was in fact
no delay. It is to be noted that the High Court found that the afore-
said Manjit Singh was not examined as a wjtness. His evidence
would have thrown considerable light as to whether and when
he informed the informant as claimed. He is supposed to have
B taken Gurpal Singh to the hospital. His non-examination has
been rightly taken note of to be a vulnerable factor by the High
Court. There are certain other aspects which need to be noted.
PW-6 was taken to the hospital. The doctor attending to him
sent information to the SHO of the concerned Pol.ice Station at
c 7.15 a.m. According to the evidence of the doctor, he was taken
to the hospital at 7.15 a.m. and immediately thereafter the infor-
mation was sent to the Police Station. Interestingly, the respon-
dent was taken to the hospital at 8.30 a.m. It has not been ex-
plained by the prosecution as to why there was delay in send-
D ing the respondent-accused to the hospital. Here again; doctor
attending to him sent information to the Police Station. It was
accepted before the High Court that before lodging of the FIR
by the informant, the intimations given by the police had reached
the police stati.on. The effect of these informations was not con-
sidered by the trial Court. Whether they constituted FIR or not is
E another question. The third factor which has weighed with the
High Court to direct acquittal was the non-explanation of the
injuries on the accused. Though, non-explanation of the minor
injuries could not be a factor to make the prosecution version
vulnerable in all cases, but if the injuries were of serious nature
F the prosecution has to explain that aspect.
6. In the instant case, the evidence of the doctor who ex-
amined the accused clearly stated that the injuries were on ac-
count of dragging him on surface littered with brokE!n glas'ses.
G . In that background the injuries on the accused had to be ex-
plained.
7. Considering the scope of Section 417 Cr.P.C. (old) (cor-
responding to Section 378 of present Cr.P.C.), the Privy Coun-
cil in Shea Swarup & others Vs. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC
H 227 ,. held that.the Court gives full power to the High Court to
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1085
~
-+ KANTA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

review at large the evidence upon which order of acquittal is A
founded and to reach the conclusion whether an order of ac-
quittal needs to be reversed or not upon that evidence, hence
no limitation should be placed on that power unless found ex-
pressly stated in the Code. However, the Privy Council put cer-
- ....,,.
~-
tain principles as a matter of caution to be observed by the ap- B
pellate court stating that the High Court should and will always
·give proper weight and consideration to such matters before
reaching its conclusion upon facts, namely- (1) the view of the
trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presump-
tion of innocence in favour of the accused and that presumption c
is not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his
trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and
(4) the slowness of an appellate- court in disturbing a finding of
fact arrived by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the

- witnesses. To summarize the Privy Council observed:
" ...... To state this however is only to say that the High
Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in
D

accordance with rules and principles well known and
recognized in the administration of justice."
8. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the Privy Council E
in NurMohammad V Emperor AIR 1954 PC 151 and affirmed
by this Court also in Prandas V State AIR 1954 SC 36. The
judgment of this Court was rendered by a Bench of six-Hon'ble
Judges of this Court. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Aher
Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra (1955 (2) SCR 1285) ob- F
served that it is not enough for the High Court to take a different
view of the evidence; there must also be "substantial and com-
pelling reasons" for holding that the trial Court was wrong. The
words "substantial and compelling reasons" observed in
Khima's case (supra) sought to be interpreted subsequently as G
if only in exceptional cases High Court can interfere. The matter
_,..,.,-
came up before this Court in Sanwat Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan (1961 (3) SCR 120), where a three-Judge Bench of
this Court noted that the words "substantial and compelling rea-
sons" used in certain decisions have created some difficulty in H
1086 -SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 10 S.C.R.

A understanding the scope of the said words. Explaining the same
this Court held as under:
''This Court obviously did not and could not add a condition
to s.417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The words were
intended to convey the idea that an appellate court not only _...
.- '
B shall bear in mind the principles laid down by the Pri\/y
Council but also must give its clear reasons for coming to
the conclusion that the order of acquittal was wrong."
9. It concluded as under:
c ''The foregoing discussion yields the following results (1)
.. an appellate court has full power to review the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the
principles laid down in Sheo Swarup's case afford a
correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case
D in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different ~

phraseology used iri the judgments of this Court, such as.
(i) "substantial and compelling reasons", (ii) "good and
sufficiently cogent reasons",· and (iii) strong reasons" are
not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an, appellate
E court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire
evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing
so it should not only consider every matter on record having
a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given
by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its
F ·arriving at a conclusion on those facts; but should also ..,....
express those reasons in its judgment which lead it to
hold that the acquittal was not justified. "
,!
10. A Constitution Bench of this Court again reviewed all
the aforesaid judgments in M. G. Agarwal vs. State of
G Maharashtra (1963 (2) SCR 405) and reiterating the principles
laid down in Sheo Swarup (supra), it affirmed the view taken by ..,...__
the this Court in Sanwat Singh (supra) and held "it is not neces-
sary that before reversing a judgment of acquittal, the High Court
must necessarily characterised the -findings recorded therein
H as perverse."
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1087
Wt ... KANTA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

11. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra A
(1973) 2 sec 793 it was held that "in law there are no fetters
on the plenary power of the appellate Court to review the whoie
evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and, indeed,

-- ,..._ it has a duty to scrutinize the probative material de novo, in-
formed, however, by the weighty thought that the rebuttable in- 8
nocence attributed to the accused having been converted into
an acquittal the homage our jurisprudence owes to individual lib-
erty constrains the higher court not to upset the holding without
very convincing reasons and comprehensive considerations."
12. In K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 c
(2) SCR 363 reiterating the principles as mentioned in Sheo
Swarup (supra), the this Court observed as under:
" ............ Occasionally phrases like manifestly illegal',
'grossly unjust'' have been used to describe the orders of
D
acquittal which warrant interference. But, such expressions
have been used more, as flourishes of language, to
emphasise the reluctance of the Appellate Court to
interfere with an order of acquittal than to curtail the power
of the Appellate Court to review the entire evidence and
to come to its own conclusion ..... If. two reasonably E
probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are
possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of
a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities
must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person
to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a F
duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused
must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against
him .... "
13. There has not been any change and in many subse-
G
quent decisions, i.e., Ramesh Babu Lal Doshi Vs. State of
,.,-.-
Gujarat, JT 1996(6) SC 79, George Vs. State of Kera/a AIR
1998 SC 1376, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 4
SCC 484, Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of M.P J7
2002(3) SC 387 and Ka/Ju Vs. State of M.P JT 2006(12) SC
H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
+ 11111
A 586, the aforesaid views have been reiterated. This Court in
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007 (4) SCC
415), having a complete retrospect on all the earlier judgments,

8
has culleq down, in para 41, the following principles regarding
the power of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal:
..... - -
(1) An appellate Court has 1ull power to review,
appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
.
which
.
the order of acquittal is founded

c (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate Court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion,, both on
questions of.fact and of law;
·~
D ,(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and
compelling· reasons; 'good and sufficient grounds',
'very.strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions',
. 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail
extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal
E against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize
the reluctant of an appellate Court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion. ...,..
F
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that t
·Jn case of acquittal, there is double presumption in ~

~
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence available to him under the fundamental t--
G· principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
should be presumed to be innocent unless he is ~-

proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly,
the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence it further reinforced,
H reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1089
KANTA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the A
basis of evidence on record, the appellate court .
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court."
14. In our considered view the acquittal as directed by the
High Court cannot be faulted. Even though it may be possible 8
hypothetically to take a different view on the evidence, we are
not inclined to interfere with the view of the High Court. The
appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.