Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2119 OF 2010
STATE OF RAJASTHAN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KISTOORA RAM RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
th
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 15
September 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 25 of
1986, thereby acquitting the respondentaccused herein and
th
reversing the judgment dated 10 January 1986 passed by
the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur
(hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Original
Criminal Case No.114 of 1984, thereby convicting the
respondentaccused herein under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentencing him to
Signature Not Verified
undergo life imprisonment. The respondentaccused was also
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.08.08
16:23:20 IST
Reason:
convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to
1
undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The respondent–accused was charged for an offence
2.
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. It is the
prosecution case that the accused had killed his wife with a
lathi , dragged her 100 feet away from the house and set her
on fire in order to destroy the evidence.
The trial court, after appreciating the evidence,
3.
convicted the respondent–accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer life
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/. The respondent
accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/.
4. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondentaccused
preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court,
vide impugned judgment, allowed the appeal thereby
reversing the order of conviction and acquitted the accused
for the offences charged. Being aggrieved thereby, the State
of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal before this Court.
5. We have heard Mr. Vishal Meghwal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant–State of Rajasthan.
6. Mr. Meghwal, learned counsel for the appellantState
has submitted that when the trial court, upon appreciation of
2
evidence of Guman Singh (PW4), had convicted the
respondent–accused, there was no reason for the High Court
to interfere with the same. He has submitted that the extra
judicial confession made by the respondent–accused before
Guman Singh (PW4) is such, which would inspire
confidence in the judicial mind. It is submitted that Guman
Singh (PW4) was an independent witness inasmuch as he
had served in the police department and there was no reason
to disbelief his testimony. It is further submitted that Hamira
Ram (PW7) though has been declared hostile, part of his
testimony related to extrajudicial confession is trustworthy
and the same corroborates the testimony of Guman Singh
(PW4). He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court needs to be set aside and
the judgment of the trial court needs to be confirmed.
7. We have perused the judgment of the trial court dated
th th
10 January 1986 as well as the High Court dated 15
September 2009.
8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal
is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the
Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to
interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are
3
possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of
acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way
of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be
warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.
9. The High Court has elaborately discussed the evidence.
Undisputedly, Hamira Ram (PW7) has turned hostile. The
trial court itself had disbelief the alleged recovery of the
incriminating material allegedly recovered at the instance of
the respondent–accused.
That only leaves with the extrajudicial confession
10.
allegedly made by Guman Singh (PW4). The High Court,
relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of
1
, so also in the case of
Punjab v. Bhajan Singh and Others
2
Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar has held that extrajudicial
confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there
was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of
extrajudicial confession could not be sustained. The view
taken by the High Court cannot be said to be either
impossible or perverse meriting our interference.
In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to
11.
interfere with the impugned judgment. We find no merit in
1 (1975) 4 SCC 472
2 (2008) 17 SCC 128
4
the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
12.
accordingly.
...................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.......................................................J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi;
th
28 July, 2022.
5