1984 INSC 0268
                                                     Bhanwar Lal

                                                           Vs

                                                  State of Rajasthan

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1974

                           (CJI Y. V. Chandrachud, D. A. Desai, M. P. Thakkar JJ)

                                                      27.09.1984

                                                     JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, C.J. ­

1. 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 Section Judge. The High Court, however, set aside the acquittal of the appellant, convicted
him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, and sentenced him of life
imprisonment.

2. 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
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 the reasons given by the trial court in support of
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.

3. The incident out of which the prosecution arose happened at about 8 p.m. on September 29, 1968
at Bhilwara, Rajasthan, leading 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 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 3 and 4 on the other. The latter, it is alleged, procured the help of
the appellant and of Kanahiya Lal in doing Gyanchand to death.

4. The prosecution examined a few witness in support of its case but it is unnecessary to refer to the
evidence of each one of them. The most important witness in the case in Bodu Lal (PW 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 seance of offence. Bodu Lal identified the
appellant in the identification parade. According to his evidence, the appellant was wearing a yellow
baniyan 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.
5. 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.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and confirm the Judgment of the High Court.

</html