/2022 INSC 0025/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.111­113 OF 2015
RAJESH PRASAD  …..APPELLANT(S) 
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.      ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA J. 
These   appeals   have   been   filed   by   the   appellant   ­
informant   (PW­7   Rajesh   Prasad)   assailing   the   judgment   and
order   dated   5 th
  August,   2009   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos.714, 747 and 814
of   2008   by   which   the   judgment   of   conviction   dated   26 th
  June,
2008   and   order   of   sentence   dated   30 th
  June,   2008   passed   by
the   Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judge,   Fast   Track   Court­V,
Munger, has been set aside by allowing the   aforesaid appeals
and by accordingly answering the Death Reference No.13/2008
and  consequently  acquitting all the accused. 

2
2. The   Court   of   Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judge,   Fast
Track   Court­V,   Munger,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘Fast
Track Court’) vide its judgment dated 26 th
June,2008 convicted
the respondents herein viz., Upendra Ram, Mahendra Ram and
Munna   Ram.   By   order   dated   30 th
  June,   2021,   the   Fast   Track
Court   sentenced   Upendra   Ram   to   undergo   imprisonment   for
life with fine of Rs.5000/­ and in default of payment of fine he
was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for
the offence under section 302/34 read with section 120B of the
Indian  Penal   Code  (for   short,  the  ‘IPC’)    and  also  sentenced  to
undergo   rigorous   imprisonment  for   one   year   for   offence   under
section   504   of   IPC   and   further   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment  for  ten   years  each  for  the   offence   under   section
3/4   of   the   Explosive   Substances   Act,   1908   and   ordered   that
the   sentences   run   concurrently.   The   Fast   Track   Court
sentenced the accused viz., Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram to
death   under   sections   302/34   read   with   section   120B   of   IPC
and sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, subject to
confirmation by the High Court. The Fast Track Court however
acquitted the other accused viz., Fantus Mandal, Dhappu Ram
and Chandrabhanu Prasad.

3
3. It   is   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   on   Thursday,   10 th
March,   2005,   at   about   5.00   pm,   accused   Mahendra   Ram,
Upendra   Ram,   Munna   Ram,   Dhappu   Ram,   all   being   sons   of
Kishori   Ram   and   Chandrabhanu   Prasad,   with   two   other
unknown   persons   proceeded   towards   the   informant   viz.,
Rajesh Prasad (PW­7) and protested that as the informant had
opposed their illegal activities, his entire family would be blown
off   by   a   bomb.   Accused   Munna   Ram   threw   a   bomb   at   the
informant’s   father   Chhote   Lal   Mahto   who   was   sitting   in   his
betel   (pan)   shop.   The   rear   portion   of   his   father’s   head   was
blown   off   leading   to   his   death.   Accused   Mahendra   Ram   threw
another  bomb  against  O.P.  Verma  and  as  a result  thereof,  his
head   was   blown   away   and   he   died   on   the   spot.   Further,
Upendra   Ram   hurled   another   bomb   which   missed   injuring
anyone   else   and   exploded   on   the   road.   Then   accused
Chandrabhanu   and   Dappu   Ram   stated   that   they   would
proceed   from   there   as   their   job   had   been   completed   and   they
tried to flee from the spot, but the furious public caught hold of
an unknown person and assaulted him as a result of which he
was   seriously   injured   and   he   died.   The   accused,   while   fleeing
away, threatened that their action was a result of opposition by
the   informant   against   the   illicit   sale   of   liquor   by   them   and   if

4
anyone   again   obstructed   their   business,   they   would   face
similar   consequences.   Accused­Chandrabhanu   Prasad   helped
the accused­Munna Ram to flee from the spot. 
4. The informant had further stated that he was objecting to
the   illegal   sale   of   liquor   by   the   accused   and   on   account   of
enmity and in pursuance of their common intention and object,
they   had   hurled   bombs   and   killed   the   father   of   the   informant
as well as others. 
5. On receipt of the said information, a  case was registered
at Kotawali PS being Case No.136/2005 dated 10 th
March, 2005
under   sections   302/34,   120B   of   IPC   and   section   3/4   of   the
Explosive  Substances   Act,  1908  (hereinafter  referred  to   as   the
‘Act’) against the accused.  The police investigated the case and
submitted   the   chargesheet   dated   7 th
June,   2005   against   the
accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger,
keeping investigation pending with regard to the other charges
for   offences   under   sections   302,   120B,   504,   225   of   IPC   and
section   3/4   of   the   Act.   On   8 th
  June,   2005,   the   Chief   Judicial
Magistrate,   Munger,   took   cognizance   of   the   alleged   offences
against   the   accused   and   committed   the   case   to   the   Court   of
Sessions   after   complying   with   the   provision   of   section   207   of

5
the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   (for   short,   the   ‘Cr.PC’)   vide
order dated 17 th
 June, 2005. 
6.  The   case   was   transferred   to   the   Court   of   Additional
District Judge­I, Munger and later on, to the Fast Track Court
on   9 th
  December,   2005.   Thereafter,   the   charge   for   the
concerned offences was read over and explained to the accused
in   Hindi   to   which   they   pleaded   not   guilty   and   claimed   to   be
tried. 
7. The prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses and took
note   of   Material   Objects   (MOs).   Thereafter,   statements   of   the
accused   under   section   313   Cr.PC   were   recorded.   All   the
accused denied the alleged occurrence and submitted that they
were innocent and had been falsely implicated. They contended
that there were dues in respect of liquor taken by Ashok Yadav
from   the   informant   who   was   running   an   illegal   liquor   shop.
The   said   dues   were   demanded   from   Ashok   Yadav   for   which
there   was   a   scuffle   between   them   and   the   family   of   the
informant assaulted Ashok Yadav. As a result, some unknown
persons   became   furious   and   hurled   bombs   and   caused   the
alleged   occurrence.   That   the   associates   of   the   informant   had

6
looted   the   tea   shop   of   accused   Dhappu   Ram   and   that   the
informant had falsely implicated the accused. 
8.  We have heard Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant;   Sri   Saket   Singh,   learned   counsel   for   the   State   and
Sri   Ranjan   Mukherjee,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents­
accused and perused the material on record. 
9. Appellant’s   counsel   submitted   that   the   High   Court   was
not   right   in   setting   aside   the   judgment   of   conviction   and
sentence   passed   by   the   Fast­Track   Court,   thereby   acquitting
the accused. She drew our attention to the evidence of PWs 3,
4,   5,   8,   9   and   10   and   contended   that   the   same   would   clearly
establish   the   guilt   of   the   accused   beyond   reasonable   doubt.
However,   the   High   Court   has   not   appreciated   the   case   of   the
appellant herein in its proper perspective and has set aside the
judgment   of   the   Fast­Track   Court.   The   appellant­informant
PW­7 who is one of the sons of the deceased Chhote Lal Mahto
had   clearly   stated   in   the   complaint   and   also   in   his   deposition
about   the   culpability   of   the   accused   which   has   not   been
properly appreciated by the High Court. 

7
10.   While   drawing   our   attention   to   the   evidence   on   record,
learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   the   High
Court   has   arrived   at   incorrect   conclusions   and   thereby
reversing the judgment of the Fast­Track Court. 
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
while acquitting the accused, the High Court has directed that
proceedings of perjury be initiated against the appellant herein
which   was   wholly   unnecessary   having   regard   to   the   fact   that
the Fast Track Court had accepted the case of the prosecution
and on the basis of the evidence of the appellant herein as well
as other eyewitnesses had convicted the accused. 
12. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   finally   contended   that
the   impugned   judgment   of   acquittal   may   be   set  aside   and   the
judgment   of   the   Fast   Track   Court   be   restored   as   the   accused
have   committed   serious   offences   under   section   302/34   read
with section 120B of IPC as well as other sections resulting in
death  of  two  persons,  one  being  the  father  of  the  appellant as
well   as   another,   on   account   of   the   bombs   hurled   by   the
accused   against   the   deceased.   She   submitted   that   the   third
bomb   which   was   hurled   by   an   accused   missed   injuring   any
person but that would not in any way lead to his acquittal. 

8
13.  Per   contra,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
respondents­accused   supported   the   judgment   of   the   High
Court and contended that the High Court has rightly perceived
and   assessed   the   evidence   on   record   and   as   a   result   reversed
the   erroneous   judgment   of   the   Fast­Track   Court.   It   was
submitted   that   the   Fast­Track   Court   failed   to   note   that   the
evidence   on   record   did   not   prove   the   case   of   the   prosecution
beyond   reasonable   doubt   vis­à­vis   the   accused   and   despite
that   death   penalty   had   been   imposed   on   two   of   the   accused
and   life   imprisonment   on   another   accused   which   has   been
rightly   reversed   by   the   High   Court   by   a   reasoned   judgment.
Therefore,   the   impugned   judgment   would   not   call   for   any
interference  at the  hands of this  Court as  there is no  merit  in
these appeals. Hence, the appeals may be dismissed. 
14.  Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
respective   parties,   the   following   points   would   arise   for   our
consideration:
(a)   Whether   the   High   Court   was   justified   in
reversing   the   judgment   of   conviction   and
sentence   awarded   by   the   Fast­Track   Court,
thereby acquitting all the accused?

9
(b) Whether the judgment of the High Court calls for
any interference or modification by this Court?
(c) What order?
15.  The   Fast­Track   Court   considered   the   case   of   the
prosecution being that on 10 th  
March, 2005 at about 5.00 pm,
the   accused   came   to   the   informant   and   stated   that   since   the
informant   and   his   family   were   objecting   to   his   illegal   sale   of
country   made   liquor,   he   along   with   his   family   would   be
eliminated. Then, accused Munna Ram hurled a bomb that he
was   holding   in   his   hand   and   the   father   of   the   informant,
Chhote   Lal   Mahto,   sitting   at   the   betel   shop   died   in   the   blast.
Second   bomb   was   hurled   by   accused   Mahendra   Ram   causing
the   death   of   a   pedestrian   named   O.P.   Verma   and   the   third
bomb   was   thrown   by   accused   Upendra   Ram,   which   exploded
on   the   road.   The   accused   then   fled   from   the   spot.   That   the
offences were committed by the accused as a result of objection
raised   by   the   deceased   Chhote   Lal   Mahto   and   his   son   PW­7
Rajesh   Prasad­informant,   appellant   herein,   against   the   illegal
liquor business of the accused. 
16. The   Fast­Track   Court   also   noted   that   the   defence   was
unable to substantiate their case that the tea shop of accused

10
Dhappu   Ram   had   been   looted   by   the   informant   and   his
associates.   They   further   stated   that   there   were   disputes   in
respect of payment of prices of liquor by Ashok Yadav and as a
result the latter and his associates had exploded the bombs. 
17. The versions of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 who were eyewitnesses
as well as that of PW­7 i.e. the informant were accepted by the
Fast   Track   Court  as   being   consistent  with   each   other   as   their
ocular   testimony   proved   the   prosecution   case   beyond   any
reasonable   doubt.   Accordingly,   three   of   the   accused   were
convicted and sentenced as noted above.
18. The   Fast   Track   Court   on   considering   the   evidence   on
record held as under and came to the following conclusion:
(i) That   PW­1,   PW­3,   PW­4   and   PW­7   are   related   to
each   other,   they   being   the   son­in­law,   cousin   and
sons   of   the   deceased,   Chhote   Lal   Mahto
respectively.   PW­2   is   the   shopkeeper   of   the   PCO
booth which is the shop adjoining the betel shop of
the   informant.   PW­2  was   also   injured   by   a   splinter
of   the   bomb   which   was   hurled   on   the   deceased
Chhote Lal Mahto who was in his betel shop. PW­8
also   witnessed   the   occurrence.   As   such,   PW­2   and

11
PW­8 are independent witnesses. PW­5 is the doctor
who performed the post­mortem examination of the
deceased   and   PWs­9   and   10   are   the   Investigating
Officers (IOs) of the case. 
(ii) That   totally   three   bombs   were   hurled   resulting   in
the death of Chhotey Lal Mahto and another person
and   the   third   bomb   exploded   on   the   road.   As   a
result,   the   public   became   furious   and   caught   hold
of   an   unknown   person   and   assaulted   him,   which
resulted   in   his   death.   It   had   come   in   the   evidence
that the said person was Ashok Yadav. 
(iii) That   the   name   of   Fantus   alias   Udai   Prakash
Mandal   had   not   been   found   in   the   FIR   and   the
witnesses   had   not   testified   against   his   involvement
in  the occurrence  nor has  there  been any  overt act
alleged against him. 
(iv) No overt act had been alleged against Dhappu Ram
and Chandrabhanu Prasad. 
(v) Consequently,   Fantus   Mandal,   Dhappu   Ram   and
Chandrabhanu Prasad were not found guilty of any
offences alleged and they were acquitted. 

12
(vi) Considering   the   evidence   on   record,   it   was   found
that   Upendra   Ram,   Munna   Ram   and   Mahendra
Ram   were   guilty   and   they   were   convicted   and
sentenced as stated above by the Fast Track Court. 
19.  In   the   appeals   filed   by   the   accused   and   in   the   Death
Reference   No.13/2008,   the   High   Court,   on   considering   the
submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   accused   as   well   as   the
State, noted at the outset as under: 
“It   is   trite   law   that   acquittal   of   a   co­accused   cannot
simpliciter be a ground for acquittal of other accused.
There   may   be   factors   distinguishing   the   two   cases.
Alternately,   an   erroneous   acquittal   and   absence   of
any   challenge   to   the   same   cannot   be   a   ground   to
demand   similar   treatment   by   others.   Likewise,   the
testimony   of   an   interested   witness   cannot   be
discarded on that ground alone. It would only require
the   Court   to   be   more   cautious   and   scrutinize   the
evidence   carefully.   Evidence,   otherwise   cogent   and
convincing   cannot   be   rejected   on   the   ground   that
there   was   no   independent   witness,   though   the
occurrence   had   taken   place   on   a   busy   road.   But,
there may be circumstances where the witnesses are
interested   and   the   manner   of   occurrence   as
described   requires   corroboration   by   independent
witness also. Ultimately, therefore, it shall all depend
on   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case.   It   has
also to be kept in mind that it shall be those close to
the   deceased,   who   shall   be   most   keen   that   the   real
culprits be booked.”  

13
With the aforesaid observations, the High Court set aside
the judgment of conviction of the accused who were convicted
by   the   Fast­Track   Court   as   well   as   sentence   imposed   upon
them   and   accordingly,   allowed   the   appeals   by   acquitting   all
the accused.
20.   Before   proceeding   further,   it   would   be   useful   to   review
the   approach   to   be   adopted   while   deciding   an   appeal   against
acquittal   by   the   trial   court   as   well   as   by   the   High   Court.
Section   378   of   the   Cr.P.C   deals   with   appeals   in   case   of
acquittal.   In   one   of   the   earliest   cases   on   the   powers   of   the
High   Court   in   dealing   with   an   appeal   against   an   order   of
acquittal the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in   Sheo
Swarup vs. R. Emperor ,   AIR 1934 PC 227(2)  considered the
provisions   relating   to   the   power   of   an   appellate   court   in
dealing   with   an   appeal   against   an   order   of   acquittal   and
observed as under:
“16.   It   cannot,   however,   be   forgotten   that   in   case   of
acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available   to   him   under   the   fundamental   principle   of
criminal   jurisprudence   that   every   person   should   be
presumed   to   be   innocent   unless   he   is   proved   to   be
guilty   by   a   competent   court   of   law.   Secondly,   the
accused   having   secured   an   acquittal,   the
presumption   of   his   innocence   is   certainly   not
weakened   but   reinforced,   reaffirmed   and
strengthened by the trial court.

14
But   in   exercising   the   power   conferred   by   the   Code
and   before   reaching   its   conclusions   upon   fact,   the
High Court should and will always give proper weight
and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of
the   trial  Judge   as  to   the  credibility  of  the   witnesses;
(2)   the   presumption   of   innocence   in   favour   of   the
accused,   a   presumption   certainly   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   at   by   a   judge   who   had   the
advantage   of   seeing   the   witnesses.   To   state   this,
however,   is   only   to   say   that   the   High   Court   in   its
conduct   of   the   appeal   should   and   will   act   in
accordance with rules and principles well known and
recognised in the administration of justice.”
It   was   stated   that   the   appellate   court   has   full   powers   to
review and to reverse the acquittal. 
21. In   Atley   vs.   State   of   U.P. ,   AIR   1955   SC   807 ,   the
approach   of   the   appellate   court   while   considering   a   judgment
of acquittal was discussed and it was observed that unless the
appellate   court   comes   to   the   conclusion   that   the   judgment   of
the acquittal was perverse, it could not set aside the same. To a
similar   effect   are   the   following   observations   of   this   Court
speaking through Subba Rao J., (as His Lordship then was) in
Sanwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 :
“9.   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

15
Swarup   case afford a correct guide for the appellate
court’s   approach   to   a   case   disposing   of   such   an
appeal;  and (3) the different phraseology  used in 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 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   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.”
The  need  for the  aforesaid observations arose  on  account
of  observations  of  the   majority  in   Aher   Raja   Khimavs.   State
of   Saurashtra,   AIR   1956   SC   217   which   stated   that   for   the
High Court to take a different view on the evidence  “there must
also  be substantial and compelling reasons  for holding that  the
trial court was wrong.”
22. M.G. Agarwal vs. State of  Maharashtra ,   AIR 1963 SC
200   is   the   judgment   of   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court,
speaking   through   Gajendragadkar,   J.   (as   His   Lordship   then
was). This Court observed that the approach of the High Court
(appellate   court)   in   dealing   with   an   appeal   against   acquittal
ought to be cautious because the presumption of innocence in

16
favour   of   the   accused   “is   not   certainly   weakened   by   the   fact
that he has been acquitted at his trial.” 
23. In  Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1973) 2 SCC 793 , Krishna Iyer, J., observed as follows: 
“In   short,   our   jurisprudential   enthusiasm   for
presumed   innocence   must   be   moderated   by   the
pragmatic   need   to   make   criminal   justice   potent   and
realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing
chance   possibilities   as   good   enough   to   set   the
delinquent   free   and   chopping   the   logic   of
preponderant   probability   to   punish   marginal
innocents.”
24. This   Court   in   Ramesh   Babulal   Doshi   vs.   State   of
Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 , spoke about the approach of the
appellate   court   while   considering   an   appeal   against   an   order
acquitting the accused and stated as follows: 
“While   sitting   in   judgment   over   an   acquittal   the
appellate court is first required to seek an answer to
the   question   whether   the   findings   of   the   trial   court
are   palpably   wrong,   manifestly   erroneous   or
demonstrably   unsustainable.   If   the   appellate   court
answers the above question in the negative the order
of acquittal  is not to  be disturbed. Conversely, if the
appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that
the   order   of   acquittal   cannot   at   all   be   sustained   in
view   of   any   of   the   above   infirmities   it   can   then­and
then   only­   reappraise   the   evidence   to   arrive   at   its
own conclusions.”

17
The object and the purpose of the aforesaid approach is to
ensure   that   there   is   no   miscarriage   of   justice.   In   another
words,   there   should   not   be   an   acquittal   of   the   guilty   or   a
conviction of an innocent person. 
25. In   Ajit   Savant   Majagvai   vs.   State   of   Karnataka ,
(1997)   7   SCC   110 ,  this   Court  set  out   the   following   principles
that would regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the
High   Court   against   an   order   of   acquittal   passed   by   the   Trial
Court:
“16.   This   Court   has   thus   explicitly   and   clearly   laid
down the principles which would govern and regulate
the   hearing   of   appeal   by   the   High   Court   against   an
order   of   acquittal   passed   by   the   trial   court.   These
principles   have   been   set   out   in   innumerable   cases
and may be reiterated as under:
(1) In   an   appeal   against   an   order   of   acquittal,   the
High   Court   possesses   all   the   powers,   and
nothing less than the powers it possesses while
hearing   an   appeal   against   an   order   of
conviction.
(2) The High Court has the power to reconsider the
whole   issue,   reappraise   the   evidence   and  come
to   its   own   conclusion   and   findings   in   place   of
the   findings   recorded   by   the   trial   court,   if   the
said   findings   are   against   the   weight   of   the
evidence on record, or in other words, perverse.
(3) Before   reversing   the   finding   of   acquittal,   the
High   Court   has   to   consider   each   ground   on
which   the   order   of   acquittal   was   based   and   to
record   its   own   reasons   for   not   accepting   those

18
grounds   and   not   subscribing   to   the   view
expressed by the trial court that the accused is
entitled to acquittal.
(4) In   reversing   the   finding   of   acquittal,   the   High
Court   has   to   keep   in   view   the   fact   that   the
presumption   of   innocence   is   still   available   in
favour   of   the   accused   and   the   same   stands
fortified   and   strengthened   by   the   order   of
acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court.
(5) If   the   High   Court,   on   a   fresh   scrutiny   and
reappraisal   of   the   evidence   and   other   material
on   record,   is   of   the   opinion   that   there   is
another   view   which   can   be   reasonably   taken,
then   the   view   which   favours   the   accused
should be adopted.
(6) The   High   Court   has   also   to   keep   in   mind   that
the   trial   court   had   the   advantage   of   looking   at
the demeanour of witnesses and observing their
conduct in  the  Court  especially  in  the witness­
box.
(7) The   High   Court   has   also   to   keep   in   mind   that
even   at   that   stage,   the   accused   was   entitled   to
benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a
reasonable   person   would   honestly   and
conscientiously   entertain   as   to   the   guilt   of   the
accused.”
26. This   Court   in   Ramesh   Babulal   Doshi   vs.   State   of
Gujarat,   (1996)   9   SCC   225   observed   vis­à­vis   the   powers   of
an   appellate   court   while   dealing   with   a   judgment   of   acquittal,
as under: 
“7. … While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the
appellate court is first required to seek an answer to
the   question   whether   the   findings   of   the   trial   court

19
are   palpably   wrong,   manifestly   erroneous   or
demonstrably   unsustainable.   If   the   appellate   court
answers the above question in the negative the order
of acquittal  is not to  be disturbed. Conversely, if the
appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that
the   order   of   acquittal   cannot   at   all   be   sustained   in
view of any  of the  above infirmities it can  then—and
then   only—reappraise   the   evidence   to   arrive   at   its
own conclusions.”
27.     This   Court   in   Chandrappa   &   Ors.   vs.   State   of
Karnataka ,   (2007)   4   SCC   415 ,   highlighted   that   there   is   one
significant   difference   in   exercising   power   while   hearing   an
appeal   against   acquittal   by   the   appellate   court.   The   appellate
court   would   not   interfere   where   the   judgment   impugned   is
based   on   evidence   and   the   view   taken   was   reasonable   and
plausible.   This   is   because   the   appellate   court   will   determine
the fact that there is presumption in favour of the accused and
the   accused   is   entitled   to   get   the   benefit   of   doubt   but   if   it
decides   to   interfere   it   should   assign   reasons   for   differing   with
the decision of acquittal. 
28.   After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled
out the following general principles regarding the powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal in the following words: 
“42.   From   the   above   decisions,   in   our   considered
view,   the   following   general   principles   regarding

20
powers   of   the   appellate   court   while   dealing   with   an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An   appellate   court   has   full   power   to   review,
reappreciate   and   reconsider   the   evidence   upon
which the order of acquittal is founded.
(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.
(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   against
acquittal.   Such   phraseologies   are   more   in   the
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise
the reluctance 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.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that   in   case   of   acquittal,   there   is   double
presumption   in   favour   of   the   accused.   Firstly,
the   presumption   of   innocence   is   available   to
him   under   the   fundamental   principle   of
criminal   jurisprudence   that   every   person   shall
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   is   further
reinforced,   reaffirmed   and   strengthened   by   the
trial court.
(5) If   two   reasonable   conclusions   are   possible   on
the   basis   of   the   evidence   on   record,   the

21
appellate   court   should   not   disturb   the   finding
of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
29. In   Nepal   Singh   vs.   State   of   Haryana–   (2009)   12   SCC
351 , this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court which
had set aside the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial
court   and   restored   the   judgment   of   the   trial   court   acquitting
the accused on reappreciation of the evidence. 
30.   The   circumstances   under   which   an   appeal   would   be
entertained by this Court from an order of acquittal passed by
a High Court may be summarized as follows: 
A)  Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering with an
order   of   acquittal,   especially   when   the   order   of   acquittal
has   been   confirmed   upto   the   High   Court.   It   is   only   in
rarest   of   rare   cases,   where   the   High   Court,   on   an
absolutely   wrong   process   of   reasoning   and   a   legally
erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case,
ignoring   some   of   the   most   vital   facts,   has   acquitted   the
accused,   that   the   same   may   be   reversed   by   this   Court,
exercising   jurisdiction   under   Article   136   of   the
Constitution.   [State   of   U.P.   v.   Sahai,   AIR   1981   SC
1442]

22
Such   fetters   on   the   right   to   entertain   an   appeal   are
prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has
been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge,
to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the
case,   even   though   it   is   held   by   a   superior   court.
[ Arunachalam v. Sadhananthan, AIR 1979 (SC) 1284]
An   appeal   cannot  be  entertained   against  an  order  of
acquittal   which   has,   after   recording   valid   and   weighty
reasons,   has   arrived   at   an   unassailable,   logical
conclusion   which   justifies   acquittal.   [State   of   Haryana
v. Lakhbir Singh, (1990) CrLJ 2274 (SC)]
B)    However , this Court has on certain occasions, set
aside   the   order   of   acquittal   passed   by   a  High   Court.   The
circumstances   under   which   this   Court   may   entertain   an
appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of
conviction, may be summarised as follows: 
i) Where   the   approach   or   reasoning   of   the   High
Court is perverse: 
a) Where   incontrovertible   evidence   has   been
rejected   by   the   High   Court   based   on   suspicion
and   surmises,   which   are   rather   unrealistic.

23
[State   of   Rajasthan   v.   Sukhpal   Singh,   AIR
1984 SC 207] 
For   example,   where   direct,   unanimous   accounts
of   the   eye­witnesses,   were   discounted   without
cogent   reasoning;   [State   of   UP   v.   Shanker,   AIR
1981 SC 879]
b) Where   the   intrinsic   merits   of   the   testimony   of
relatives, living in the same house as the victim,
were   discounted   on   the   ground   that   they   were
‘interested’   witnesses;   [State   of   UP   v.   Hakim
Singh, AIR 1980 SC 184]
c) Where   testimony   of   witnesses   had   been
disbelieved   by   the  High   Court,   on  an  unrealistic
conjecture   of   personal   motive   on   the   part   of
witnesses to implicate the accused, when in fact,
the   witnesses   had   no   axe   to   grind   in   the   said
matter.  [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh,
AIR 1984 SC 207] 
d) Where   dying   declaration   of   the   deceased   victim
was   rejected   by   the   High   Court   on   an   irrelevant
ground that they did not explain the injury found
on   one   of   the   persons   present   at   the   site   of

24
occurrence   of   the   crime.   [Arunachalam   v.
Sadhanantham, AIR 1979 SC 1284] 
e) Where   the   High   Court   applied   an   unrealistic
standard   of   ‘implicit   proof’   rather   than   that   of
‘proof   beyond   reasonable   doubt’   and   therefore
evaluated   the   evidence   in   a   flawed   manner.
[State   of   UP   v.   Ranjha   Ram,   AIR   1986   SC
1959]
f) Where   the   High   Court   rejected   circumstantial
evidence, based on an exaggerated and capricious
theory,   which   were   beyond   the   plea   of   the
accused;     [State   of   Maharashtra   v.
ChampalalPunjaji   Shah,   AIR   1981   SC   1675]
or   where   acquittal   rests   merely   in   exaggerated
devotion  to the  rule of benefit of doubt in favour of
the   accused.   [Gurbachan   v.   Satpal   Singh,   AIR
1990 SC 209] .
g) Where   the   High   Court   acquitted   the   accused   on
the   ground   that   he   had   no   adequate   motive   to
commit   the   offence,   although,   in   the   said   case,
there   was   strong   direct   evidence   establishing   the
guilt   of   the   accused,   thereby   making   it

25
unnecessary   on   the   part   of   the   prosecution   to
establish   ‘motive.’   [State   of   AP   v.   Bogam
Chandraiah, AIR 1986 SC 1899]
ii) Where acquittal would result is gross miscarriage
of justice:
a) Where   the   findings   of   the   High   Court,
disconnecting   the   accused   persons   with   the
crime, were based on a perfunctory consideration
of   evidence,   [State   of   UP   v.   Pheru   Singh,   AIR
1989   SC   1205]   or   based   on   extenuating
circumstances   which   were   purely   based   in
imagination   and   fantasy.   [State   of   Uttar
Pradesh v. Pussu 1983 AIR 867 (SC)] 
b) Where   the   accused   had   been   acquitted   on
ground   of   delay   in   conducting   trial,   which   delay
was   attributable   not   to   the   tardiness   or
indifference   of   the   prosecuting   agencies,   but   to
the   conduct   of   the   accused   himself;   or   where
accused   had   been   acquitted   on   ground   of   delay

26
in conducting trial relating to an offence which is
not of a trivial nature.  [State of Maharashtra v.
ChampalalPunjaji Shah, AIR 1981 SC 1675]
[Source   :   Durga   Das   Basu   –   “The   Criminal   Procedure
Code, 1973” Sixth Edition Vol.II Chapter XXIX]
31.  Bearing   in   mind   the   aforesaid   discussion,   we   shall
consider the evidence on record.
32.  PWs­1, 3, 4 and 7  are related  to each other  and they  are
the   son­in­law,   cousin   and   sons   of   the   deceased   Chhote   Lal
Mahto,   respectively.   PW­1   in   his   examination­in­chief   has
stated that on 10.03.2005 at about 05.00 p.m., he saw Munna
Ram,   Mahendra   Ram,   Upendra   Ram,   Dappu   Ram   and   other
persons   come   near   his   shop   and   started   abusing   Chhote   Lal
Mahto (deceased) and his son Rajesh Prasad, appellant herein.
That Munna Ram threw a bomb on Chhote Lal Mahto and as a
result,   he   died.   O.P.   Verma   also   died   as   a   result   of   Mahendra
Ram  throwing a bomb at him. The third bomb was  thrown on
the street and it did not injure anybody. At the same time, 20
to 25 people came to the spot, caught hold of a person, namely

27
Ashok  Yadav   and  started   beating   him,   as  a  result  of  which,   it
was   “heard”   that   he   had   died.   However,   in   his   cross­
examination,   PW­1   has   stated   that   the   accused   and   other
persons were abusing each other. He has also stated that he is
not   aware   whether   the   police   lodged   a   case   before   Rajesh
Prasad (PW­7) or not. He has feigned ignorance about anything
that happened before the incident. He has also stated that the
deceased   Chhote   Lal   Mahto   is   his   father­in­law.   He   has
deposed   that   due   to   the   explosion   of   the   bomb,   the   area   was
covered with smoke and the Betel shop was not visible.  He has
also admitted that in his statement to the Police, he had stated
that Mahendra Ram, Upendra Ram and Dhappu Ram came to
his   shop   and   started   abusing   his   father­in­law.     Chhote   Lal
Mahto   pleaded   not   to   do   so   and   also   not   to   sell   illicit   liquor.
That  after   abusing,   they   went  away  and   returned  ten   minutes
later.     However,   he   has   admitted   that   he   does   not   remember
whether   he   has   stated   before   the   Police   that   Upendra   Ram
started shouting and directed Mahendra Ram to get hold of the
deceased and after that, Mahendra Ram threw a bomb.  He has
further stated that it is wrong to suggest that his father­in­law
and   other   persons   died   due   to   hurling   of   bombs   by   Ashok
Yadav and other unknown persons. 

28
33. PW­2/Prabhat Kumar Singh has stated that he runs a PCO
(Public   Call   Office)   booth   and   on   10.03.2005   at   about   05.00
p.m.,   he   was   at   the   booth.     That   there   was   an   altercation
between   Rajesh   Prasad   (PW­7)   and   Mahendra   Ram,   Upendra
Ram   and   Dhappu   Ram.     That   Munna   Ram   threw   a   bomb   at
Chhote Lal Mahto's betel shop which hit him on his head and
as   a   result   of   which   his   head   was   blown   off.   That   PW­2   also
came in contact with the splinters of the bomb and was injured
as   a   result   of   the   same.   That   he   was   baffled   after   seeing   the
dead   body   of   Chhote   Lal   Mahto   and   left   the   spot   after   closing
his   shop.   However,   during   cross   examination   he   has   stated
that he left the spot thirty minutes after the explosion. 
34. He   has   also   admitted   that   he   is   under   police   security   as
he   has   been   threatened   by   the   accused   that   if   he   deposes
against them, he must be ready to face the consequences. That
is   why   he   went   to   the   police   station   the   previous   evening   and
has deposed under police security. He has stated that he does
not   recognise   Uday   Prakash   Mandal   who   was   present   in   the
Court.     PW­2   has   stated   that   he   is   a   tenant   in   the   house   of
Rajesh, the informant and that he signed the affidavit that was
prepared   based   on   his   statements   which   he   had   made   as

29
“advised”   by   his   advocate.   He   has   also   admitted   that   he   had
not seen Rajesh, Naresh or any of their family members beating
Ashok Yadav.  That the people left the scene of occurrence after
the   altercation   amongst   them   ended.   He   has   stated   that   after
the occurrence, an associate of Munna Ram had caught hold of
him.   That   Chandrabhanu   Prasad’s   family   helped   Munna   Ram
flee from the spot. 
35. PW­3 / Naresh Prasad @ Naresh Mahto has stated that on
10.03.2005,   he   saw   Munna   Rai   (to   be   read   as   “Munna   Ram”)
along   with   unknown   persons   hurling   abuses   in   front   of   his
betel   shop,   stating   that   he   would   destroy   anyone   who
interfered with his business. His brother Rajesh Prasad (PW­7)
came   out   of   his   house   and   tried   to   pacify   Munna   Rai   but   he
threatened   that   he   would   blow   off   his   entire   family   with   the
bomb.     After   such   threat,   he   left   the   spot   only   to   return   after
ten minutes along with Mahendra Rai, Upendra Rai (to be read
as   “Upendra   Ram”)   and   Happu   Rai   (to   be   read   as   “Dhappu
Ram”).   That   Munna   Rai   threw   a   bomb   at   the   betel   shop   in
which   his   father   was   sitting,   as   a   result   of   which   his   father's
head was blown away and he died on the spot.   Another bomb
was   blasted   by   Munna   Rai   and   a   pedestrian,   namely,   O.P.
Verma   died.   That   he   went   near   his   father   and   started   crying.

30
He   does   not   know   what   happened   thereafter.     He   is   also   not
aware   as   to   who   else   signed   the   seizure   list   on   which   his
signature   was   found.     While   he   identified   the   accused   Munna
Rai,   Mahendra   Rai,   Upendra   Rai,   Happu   Rai,   Bhanu   Ji
(Chandrabhanu   Prasad),   he   did   not   recognise   another   person,
who   was   one   among   the   accused.   He   had   already   stated   that
he   did   not   see   Chandrabhanu   Prasad   at   the   place   of   the
occurrence.  
36. In   his   cross­examination,   he   has   stated   that   there   is   no
personal enmity with the accused and his family members.   In
fact,   there   was   " Nyota   Pehani"   (invites   exchanged)   between
their   families.     He   has   also   denied   that  there   was   any   quarrel
between him and Ashok Yadav and others such as Munna Rai.
He   has   also   denied   that   he   and   his   family   members   beat   up
Ashok   Yadav   and   others,   as   a   result   of   which   they   came   and
threw a bomb in anger.   He has also denied Happu's tea shop
was looted on the day of occurrence.   He has also denied that
the police came at the place of occurrence within five minutes.
That the Station House Officer, Kotwali P.S. did not record his
Fardbayan   at   that   time,   but   he   took   statement   of   Rajesh,
Umesh,   other   villagers   and   PW­3.     That   the   Daroga   did   not
write   Fardbayan   in   his   presence,   but   took   his   signature   on   a

31
plain   paper   and   he   does   not   know   what   was   written   in   the
application   on   the   same.     He   has   also   stated   that   he   is   not
aware   of   what   was   written   in   the   application   to   register   FIR
given   by   his   brother   as   he   was   asleep   when   such   an
application was made.  
  That,   in   his   statement   to   the   police,   he   has   stated   that
Munna Rai  and unknown persons  came to  his betel shop and
started hurling abuses. That he does not remember whether he
had told the Police that bombs were blasted by the accused. 
37. Umesh   Prasad   Rai   is   PW­4   who   has   spoken   about   the
abuses   of   Mahendra   Rai,   Upendra   Rai,   Munna   Rai,   Dhappu
Rai   to   the   effect   that   whoever   interfered   with   or   obstructed
their illegal work would be blown away by a bomb.  Munna Rai
then threw a bomb at the betel shop in which Chota Lal Mahto
was   sitting   and   as   a   result   of   which,   his   head   blew   up.
Mahendra Rai then threw a second bomb which hit a passerby,
O.P.   Verma   who   was   standing   near   M/s.   Aditya   Electronics
and  the third  bomb was blasted by  Upendra Rai which  fell on
the   road   and   exploded.     Thereafter,   he   went   near   the   body   of
Chhote   Lal   Mahto   and   kept   crying.     On   hearing   the   sound   of
the bombs, several people gathered at the place of occurrence.

32
That  the   inquest  report  of  Chhote  Lal  Mahto   was  made  before
him and he had signed it. 
38. In   his   cross­examination,   he   has   stated   that   Chhote   Lal
Mahto was his uncle.  He has stated that before the occurrence
abuses   were   hurled   but   he   has   no   knowledge   of   any   pre­
existing   scuffle   between   the   accused   and   his   brothers   Rajesh
and   Naresh   (sons   of   the   deceased).   That   he   had   not   informed
the   nearby   police   station   after   seeing   the   incident,   but
information was sent by someone else to the Police officers who
arrived   after   ten   minutes.     The   police   did   not   record   his
statement on the day of the occurrence.   He has also admitted
that   his   Fardbayan   was   not   in   his   handwriting   and   that
though he is an advocate, before signing the   Fardbayan  he did
not read it.    He  has  stated  that there was no  dispute between
Rajesh and Ashok relating to illicit liquor and it is not true that
it   was   in   the   course   of   such   dispute   that   there   was   a   scuffle
and   unknown   persons   blasted   bombs   in   which   his   uncle   and
another person died.   He has stated that no bomb was thrown
at   the   residence   of   Naresh   and   Rajesh   or   at   his   house.     That
after   two   months   and   twenty   days   after   the   occurrence,   he
went to get his statement recorded because no officer came to
record   his   statement.     That,   when   the   first   bomb   was   blasted

33
there was a stampede and he does not remember whether  the
shop   keepers   started   shutting   down   their   shops   as   there   was
much darkness.   That he has not read the supervision note of
SP   and   DSP.     He   has   no   knowledge   that   SP   had   given
directions for recovering illicit liquor from the house of Rajesh,
etc. 
39. PW­7/Rajesh   Prasad   is   the   informant   who   is   the   son   of
the   deceased   Chhote   Lal   Mahto   and   the   appellant   herein.     In
his   examination­in­chief,   he   has   stated   that   on   10.03.2005   at
about 05.00 p.m., he was at the door of his house and he saw
Mahendra   Rai,   Upendra   Rai   and   Munna   Rai   and   other
unknown   persons   come   near   his   house,   threatening   that   they
would   blow   up   his   entire   family   with   a   bomb.     Immediately,
Munna Rai threw a bomb carried by him on his father Chhote
Lal   Mahto   who   was   sitting   in   his   betel   shop   and   the   back
portion   of   his   father's  head  blew  away  resulting  in   his   instant
death.     Thereafter,   Mahendra   Rai   threw   another   bomb   near
M/s.   Aditi   Electronics   which   hit   O.P.Verma,   a   passerby,   as   a
result   of   which   his   head   blew   away   and   he   also   died   on   the
spot.  Then Upendra Rai threw the bomb which fell on the road
and   exploded.     The   accused   threatened   them   once   again   and
fled the scene.  That the reason behind the incident is that the

34
accused were carrying on illegal business of liquor and he and
his family members opposed the same and hence, there was a
conspiracy and a common intention in pursuance of which his
father   was   killed.   That   he   filed   a   written   complaint   under   his
signature   at   the   police   station   (Exhibit   No.2/2).     The   Death
Review   Report   of   the   dead   body   of   his   father   was   prepared   in
his   presence   and   he   had   signed   it   (Exhibit   No.4/1).     He   also
identified six accused persons present in the Court. 
40. In   his   cross­examination,   he   has   stated   that   he   did   not
see Chandrabhanu Prasad at the place of the incident.   He did
not   see   Dhappu   Rai   from   the   start   to   the   end   of   the   incident.
That   the   written   complaint   which   he   had   prepared   was   read
over   and   some   of   it   was   heard.   He   did   not   read   it   completely.
The complaint was made in the police station in the evening at
06.00   p.m.     That   he   had   engaged   a   private   lawyer   to   present
his case.  That the first information report was not read over to
him. That he does not know completely as to what is written in
the first information report.  He also does not know as to what
he had mentioned in the protest petition.   That his lawyer had
given   him   the   first   information   report,   so   written   and   he   had
just signed the protest petition and he had not gone through it

35
and  understood  it.  That  none  of  his  brothers  or  relatives  have
ever read the case diary, supervision note and protest petition. 
41. He   has   also   admitted   that   there   was   no   dispute   or
litigation   between   the   family   of   Mahendra,   Upendra,   Munna,
and his family.   That on the date of the alleged incident, some
heated   exchanges   between   his   father   and   Munna   took   place,
but   he   does   not   know   whether   he   has   stated   the   said   fact   in
the   first  information   report   or   in   his   protest   petition   or   before
the   Police.     He   has   also   denied   that   there   were   any   disputes
between   them   before   the   incident.     He   also   does   not   know
whether   the   police   was   informed   immediately   after   the
incident.     That   the   police   came   at   the   scene   of   the   crime   at
about   05.00   and   05.30   p.m.,   but   he   does   not   know   which
particular police officer  came there. He has also no knowledge
as to whether the inspector recorded the  Fardbayan  or whether
the statements of Upendra, his brother  or his family members
were   recorded   by   the   police   on   the   same   day   or   not,   but   his
statement was recorded. 
42. Further,   in   his   cross­examination,   PW­7   has   further
denied   that   he   had   made   any   statement   before   the   inspector,
SP   or   DSP   that   before   the   incident   at   about   04.00   to   04.30

36
p.m.,   the   accused   abused   the   villagers   in   un­parliamentary
language   and   when   they   could   not   tolerate   it   any   more,   they
came   out   of   the   house   and   abused   them.     The   accused
threatened   and   went   away.   He   also   denied   making   any
statement   to   the   effect   that   Upendra   Rai   exploded   the   bomb
which   blew   up   after   striking   the   road.   He   has   confirmed   the
statement   he   made   before   the   Inspector,   SP   and   DSP   that   a
bomb   was   exploded   by   Mahendra   Rai   near   M/s.   Aditi
Electronics,   which   hit  O.P.   Verma,   a  passerby   and   he   died   on
the spot.  He had also admitted that he does not recall whether
he had got recorded in his  Fardbayan  with the police that while
running   away,   one   of   the   accused   was   caught   hold   of   by   the
people   and   was   nearly   beaten   to   death.   He   has   further   stated
that he does not recall any other aspect of the case. For better
appreciation   of   the   same,   it   would   be   useful   to   extract
paragraph 21 of his deposition as under:
“21. I   do   not  recall   that  whether   I   had   got   recorded
in my Fard Beyan with the Police that while running
away,   one   accused   was   caught   by   the   people   and
after   giving   him   beatings   put   him   almost   to   death.   I
do   not   recall   that   I   gave   the   statement   to   the   Police
that   I   pulled   up   my   sock   and   caught   the   hold   of
Munna   Rai,   who   was   freed   by   Chandrabhan   and
brother   of   Munna   Rai   and   he   ran   away.     I   do   not
recall   that   I   had   stated   that   then   Chandrabhan   and
Tappu   said   that   our   work   is   finished   now   and   they
ran   away   from   there.     It   is   not   like   that   Mahendra,
Upendra   and   Munna   have   not   committed   the

37
incident and therefore,  I  am  saying  every time  that I
do not know."
Further, in paragraph Nos.25 and 26, PW­7 the informant
(the appellant) has stated as under:
"25. It   is   not   like   that   my   brother,   brother­in­law,
Umesh   and   I   together   beat   up   the   unknown
criminals very badly near junction turn and they got
annoyed and one of them said that just stay here we
are   coming   back   in   few   minutes   and   then   they
exploded the bombs.   It is not like that just minutes
after,   criminals   came   there   with   bombs   and   while
abusing   to   kill   me,   my   brother,   Umesh   and   brother­
in­law   and   then   we   ran   towards   our   house   to   save
our   life   and   then   they   threw   the   bomb,   which   fell
near Aditi Electronics and we succeeded  in escaping
from there and closed ourselves inside the house and
when   they   could   not   find   us,   unknown   criminals
exploded the bomb on our father in our Pan Shop.  It
is   not   like   that   when   the   accused   persons   after
exploding   the   bomb   started   running   away,   people   of
the   village   raised   the   alarm   and   then   all   people
gathered  and  managed  to   catch   one  of  the  criminals
and beat up him to death.  It is not like that when we
heard   the   noise   of   the   villagers   that   ­­­   illegible   ­­­,
we  came  out  after  opening  the  door   and  we   together
beat up the unknown criminal.   It is not like that we
did not say in the loud voice before the people of the
village   that   he   works   on   the   shop   of   Tappu   Rai   and
Munna Rai,  rob  him  and  then   we  looted  the  shop  of
Tappu   Rai   and   Munna   Rai   and   destroyed   it.     Tappu
Rai has no shop.
26. Tappu Rai has the tea shop at crossing in front
of the Court of CJM, which has now destroyed.   It is
not   like   that   when   we   asked   the   people   to   rob   and
damage   the   shop   of   Tappu   Rai   and   Munna   Rai,
Mahendra   and   Upendra   of   his   family   and   other
members   of   his   family   came   and   they   opposed   our
above  intention and  then  we hatched the  conspiracy

38
and   prepared   a   new   application   and   submitted   it
with the Police Station in night at 9.00 pm in order to
implicate them."
In   his   further   cross­examination,   in   paragraph   29,   PW­7
he has stated as under:
"29. …… I could not say that any pellet of the bomb
hit any passerby and person in traffic.  It just hurt O.
P.   Verma   only.     I   did   not   make   any   such   statement
before   the   Police   and   DCP   that   in   total   five   bombs
were exploded.   It is not like that I  said that in total
five bombs were exploded."
With   regard   to   his   statements   before   the   DSP,   PW­7   has
categorically stated as under:
"31. My statement was not recorded before the DSP
Sahab.     Again   stated   that   I   do   not   know   whether   I
made  the  statement before  the DSP Sahab  or  not.    I
do   not   know   that   I   request   the   SP   in   the   protest
petition   to   handover   the   investigation   to   some
Superior Officer.  SP had gone for supervision or not,
I cannot tell anything in this regard.
32. It   is   not   like   that   on   the   order   of   DIG,   SP   had
carried   out   the   inspection   of   the   scene   of   crime
personally.  I cannot tell anything in this regard.  It is
not   like   that   in   order   to   conceal   the   truth   of   the
incident,   I   am   stating   that   I   am   illiterate   and
concealing   the   fact   regarding   inspection   carried   out
by SP Sahab.
33. It   is   not   like   that   I   made   the   statement   to   the
SP   that   Naresh,   Bablu,   Aatish   and   I   beat   up   Ashok
Yadav   very   badly   and   when   Munna   came   for   his
rescue,   we   also   beat   up   him   and   then   he   ran   away
from there to save his life. (Objected to)."

39
With regard to the aspect of bombs being hurled, PW­7 at
paragraphs 35 and 36 has stated as under:
"35. It is incorrect to state that when first
bomb   exploded,   stampede   took   place   in   the
traffic   and   people   started   concealing
themselves   in   order   to   save   their   life   and
shop started closing and we after saving our
life   ran   away   from   there.     It   is   incorrect   to
state   that   thereafter   Ashok   Yadav   threw   the
bomb   on   my   Pan   Shop   in   its   explosion   my
father   had   died   and   thereafter   people   of   the
village   caught   the   hold   of   Ashok   Yadav   and
beat up him till he died.
36.   It   is   incorrect   to   state   that   quarrel   took
place   with   Ashok   Yadav   on   demanding
balance amount from him and he was beaten
up and due to above reason, he exploded the
bombs."
43. PW­9/Mani   Lal   Sahwas   was   the   Sub­Inspector   posted   at
P.S.   Kotwali,   Munger,   on   10.03.2005.     He   has   stated   that   he
received   information   through   telephone   about   the   incident   at
about 17.15 hours and he, along with Sub­Inspector Md. Azhar
and K.K. Gupta, along with an armed force left for Bhadeopur
Gola   Road   and   reached   there   at   17.20   hours.     On   arriving
there,   Rajesh   Prasad,   S/o.   Late   Chhote   Lal   Mahto   gave   a
written   application   (Exhibit   3/3)   about   the   cognizable   offence.
On   the   basis   of   the   said   application,   he   took   up   the
investigation of the case at the place of occurrence and during
the course of investigation, the statement of the informant was

40
taken again and a case was registered.  Thereafter, the inquest
report of Chhote Lal Mahto was prepared (Exhibit 4/2), so also
the   inquest   report   of   the   deceased   O.P.Verma   was   prepared.
Their   bodies   were   sent   for   post   mortem   at   19.30   hours   to
Sadar   Hospital,   Munger   along   with   a   constable.     The   remains
of   the   bomb   were   collected   and   seizure   list   was   prepared
(Exhibit   1/2),   so   also   the   blood   stained   soil   was   collected   and
the   seizure   list   is   at   Exhibit   No.8.     That   the   dead   body   of
Chhote   Lal   Mahto   was   brought   out   of   the   betel   shop   by   the
relatives   of   the   deceased.     Inside   the   Betel   shop,   there   was
blood   and   flesh   scattered   as   the   head   and   upper   neck   of   the
deceased Chhote Lal Mahto was blown away. The occurrence of
second   blast   was   approximately   40   to   45   yards   towards   the
north   of   the   betel   shop   of   the   deceased,   near   M/s.   Aditya
Electronics   on   the   footpath.     The   deceased   was   identified   as
Om Prakash Verma, a tea seller.  Similar seizures were made at
the scene of occurrence. 
44. He   further   stated   that   Santosh   Kumar   Patil   and   Anil
Mahto   gave   their   statements   on   the   same   day.     The   accused
were   absconding.     On   the   same   day,   the   statements   of   other
persons were recorded and on 12.03.2005 at about 06.40 a.m.,
the   accused   Munna   Rai   and   Dhappu   Rai   were   arrested.

41
Subsequently, on 18.04.2005, the investigation was transferred
to another officer.  
45. In his cross­examination, the said witness has stated that
Rajesh   Prasad,   the   informant,   did   not   state   about   Mahendra
Rai   and   Uppendra   Rai   blasting   bombs.     Referring   to   the
Fardbayan   that was recorded at the place of occurrence, PW­9
has stated as follows: That the informant’s statement does not
record   that   Mahendra   Rai,   Uppendra   Rai,   Dhappu   Rai   were
present;  Instead,  he  has  stated  that  Munna  Rai  went home  to
bring bombs and at that time, his brother was also there. That
Umesh Prasad did not say that he was  at  his gate at the  time
when   Munna   Rai,   Mahendra   Rai,   Uppendra   Rai   and   Dhappu
Rai   were   abusing   and   saying   that   whoever   objects   to   their
illegal activity would be blown up. That Umesh Prasad did not
mention in his statement that the second bomb was blown by
Mahendra   Rai   which   hit   a   passerby   by   name   O.P.Verma   who
was   standing   near   M/s.   Aditya   Electronics   and   his   head   was
blown   away.     Similarly,   there   was   no   statement   that   third
bomb   was   blasted   by   Mahendra   Rai,   which   fell   on   the   street
and made a loud noise.

42
46. Also, in the  Fardbayan  as well as in his statement, Rajesh
Prasad,   the   appellant   herein,   had   not   stated   that   Munna   Rai,
Uppendra   Rai,   Mahendra   Rai   and   Dhappu   Rai   came   near   his
father's betel shop and started abusing and upon retaliation by
his  father,  there   was   heated   argument  and   they  threatened  to
blow him up with a bomb.
47. PW­8   /Santosh   Kumar   Patel,   in   his   examination­in­chief
has   stated   that   on   10.03.2005   at   about   05.00   p.m.   he   was
standing near his gate and he saw the accused and Chhote Lal
Mahto engaged in indecent and foul abuses and heard threats
of the accused to blow up the family of Chhote Lal Mahto with
bombs   and   further,   that   Chhote   Lal   Mahto's   head   was   blown
up   by   Munna   Rai.   That   O.P.   Verma   died   in   another   bomb
attack.   But   in   his   cross   examination,   he   has   stated   that   he
could   not   have   seen   the   occurrence   of   the   incident   from   his
house which is 100 yards away.  He has further stated that his
statement was recorded by the police at the place of occurrence
and on the day of occurrence at 08.00 in the night.  But he had
not told the police that the third bomb was thrown on the road
which   did   not   hit   anyone.     Soon   thereafter,   the   people   of   the
area gathered and the people got aggressive and tried to catch
hold   of   both   the   miscreants.   He   has   further   admitted   that   he

43
did not state that the bomb was thrown at Rajesh's shop where
his father was sitting and the bomb hit him.
48. On a consideration of the aforesaid evidence, we find that
PW­7,   who   is   the   informant   in   his   evidence,   has   resiled   from
what he had initially stated to the Police even though he claims
to be an eye­witness to the occurrence. It has been established
that Chandra Bhanu Prasad, though a resident of the locality,
was   not   present   during   the   occurrence   of   the   incident.
Similarly, the presence of Dhappu Ram and Fantush Mandal is
doubted by PW­8.  In fact, the Investigating Officer / PW­9 has
also   corroborated   the   fact   that   PW­7   had   not   stated   anything
about   the   bombs   being   thrown   by   Mahendra   Ram,   Upendra
Ram   and   that   there   was   no   mention   of   Dhappu   Ram.     In   the
deposition   of   PW­3,   there   has   been   no   mention   of   Dhappu
Ram, Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram as also in the evidence
of PW­2.  Further, PW­4 who is an advocate and who is said to
have   prepared   the   written   report,   has   not   been   categorical   in
his evidence.  It is denied by PW­8 who is also an advocate and
an   attesting   witness   to   the   written   report,   that   the   bomb   was
thrown  at the informant’s shop and that it hit the informant’s
father who died as a result of the same. 

44
49. On   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid   evidence,   the   High   Court,
during   the   course   of   its   reasoning,   has   come   to   the   following
conclusions: 
a) The written report is specific but it attributes a trivial
role   to   Chandrabhanu   Prasad   who   was   accompanied
by   Dhappu   Ram   and   others.   On   the   orders   of
Chandrabhanu   Prasad,   three   bombs   were   thrown.
Chandrabhanu   Prasad   freed   co­accused   Munna   Ram
when he was apprehended. 
b) PW­7,   the   informant,   was   an   eyewitness   to   the
occurrence.   In   his   cross   examination,   he   stated   that
he   had   never   seen   Chandrabhanu   Prasad   and
Dhappu Ram, who were residents of the same locality
and   were   well   known   to   him,   present   at   any   time
throughout the occurrence. He also refused to identify
Fantus   Mandal   whose   name   arose   during
investigation. 
c) PW­2   stated   that   Chandrabhanu   Prasad   was   a
resident of the locality and was known to him but was
not present during the entire occurrence. To the same
effect   is   the   statement   of   PW­3   and   PW­4.   PW­8   also

45
stated that Dhappu Ram and Fantus Mandal were not
present. 
d) However, PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 spoke about the presence
of   Dhappu   Ram   and   gave   his   name   in   their
statements under section 161 of Cr.PC. 
e) PW­9,   the   Investigating   Officer,   has   stated   that   the
informant   in   his   statement   under   section   161   Cr.PC
had   not  stated   anything  about  throwing   of   bombs   by
Mahendra Ram and Upendra Ram and neither had he
named Dhappu Ram. 
f)     That   during   the   course   of   the   trial,   PW­3   had   not
named   Dhappu   Ram,   Munna   Ram   and   Mahendra
Ram and PW­2 had likewise not named Munna Ram,
Mahendra Ram, Upendra Ram and Dhappu Ram. 
g) PW­7   had   not   stated   anything   about   any   accused
being apprehended and beaten up. In his restatement
also,   he   did   not   state   that   Munna   Ram,   Mahendra
Ram,   Upendra   Ram   and   Dhappu   Ram   had   come   to
the shop of his father and indulged in abuse. 
h) Likewise,  PW­8  had  also  not  made  any  statement,  as
was being deposed in Court. 
In view of the above, the High Court held as under :

46
“The   contradiction   in   the   statement   of   the
prosecution   witnesses   as   stated   during   investigation
and   in   the   trial   having   been   pointed   out   to   them   in
the   manner   provided   for   in   section   145   of   the
Evidence   Act,   and   corroborated   by   the   Investigating
Officer,   under   section   157   of   the   Evidence   Act   lends
credence   to   the   allegation   of   the   defence   that   an
entirely  new  case  was  sought to  be  made   out by  the
prosecution   for   what   was   essentially   a   different
manner and sequence of events.”
i)    The police stated that they had arrived at the place of
occurrence   within   20   minutes   of   the   incident   i.e.   at
5.20   pm   which   fact   has   been   corroborated   by   PW­7,
the informant and other prosecution witnesses. PW­7
denied any written report given to the police station at
9.00   pm.   He   stated   that   he   had   signed   the   written
report   prepared   by   PW­4   but   was   not   aware   of   its
contents.
j)   According to PW­7, PW­4, who is an advocate and is a
cousin   of   PW­7,   prepared   a   written   report.   PW­7
admitted that he is an attesting witness to the FIR but
denied   full   knowledge   or   reading   of   the   same   before
signing. 
k)   Similar is the denial by PW­8, a relative of PW­7. PW­8
is   also   an   advocate   and   an   attesting   witness   to   the
written report. 

47
50. On   the   aforesaid   evidence   the   High   Court   observed   as
under :
“They   were   not   rustic   witnesses   but   were   practicing
advocates   fully   aware   of   the   nature   and   importance
of the documents they were signing. It is not possible
to   accept   their   contention   that   they   signed   it
unaware of the full contents. It raises serious doubts
that they were attempting to conceal something.” 
51. With   regard   to   the   written   report,   the   High   Court   has
noted from the evidence as under :
“There   is   no   explanation   for   this   delay,   though   he
could be presumed to be present at the Police Station
when   the   written   report   was   handed   over   to   the
police.” 
52. The High Court has also noted flaws in the investigation of
the   case   and   in   the   evidence   of   the   prosecution   witnesses
which are culled out as under: 
(i) PW­7   said   that   PW­4   drew   up   the   written   report
while PW­4 denied the same. 
(ii) While   PW­1   and   PW­3   were   related   to   the   deceased
and   signed   the   seizure   list   immediately   after   the
occurrence,   yet   PW­3   had   stated   that   he   was   not
aware of the other signatory to the seizure list. 
(iii) The   statement   of   PW­1,   who   was   a   witness   to   the
seizure list as well as an eyewitness , was recorded

48
by   the   police   one   and   half   months   later   with   no
explanation either by the witness or by the police. 
(iv) Similarly,   statement   of   PW­4   who   is   an   eyewitness
and   a   witness   to   the   inquest   report   of   the   deceased
and   who   is   stated   to   have   drawn   up   the   written
report given to the police, was recorded by the police
after   two   months   and   twenty   days.   The   High   Court
has noted that there is no explanation for the delay,
though   he   could   be   presumed   to   be   present   at   the
Police   Station   when   the   written   report   was   handed
over to the Police. 
(v) PW­2,   the   shop   owner   of   the   PCO   booth   adjoining
the   betel   shop   of   the   deceased,   was   also   allegedly
injured during the occurrence but there is no injury
report. 
(vi) The   contradiction   in   the   evidence   of   PW­3   is   noted
as under :
”That   PW­3   has   stated   that   the   police
came   within   20   to   25  minutes   and   took
the statement of the informant, PW3 and
others, but he has stated that PW­7 gave
written   report   to   the   police   at   9   p.m.,
that   he   was   sleeping   at   that   time   and
unaware   about   it   yet   he   stated   that   the
report may have been given at 8.30 p.m.
PW­7 on the other hand has stated that
the written report was given to the police

49
at   6   p.m.,   at   the   police   station   and   had
denied  of having given any  report  to the
police at 9 p.m. On the other hand, PW­
9   who   is   IO   in   the   matter   stated   that
PW­7   gave   him   the   written   report
immediately   after   he   reached   the   place
of occurrence.” 
(vii) While the prosecution witnesses alleged throwing of
three   or   more   bombs,   the   Investigating   Officer
stated   that   he   found   signs   only   of   two   explosions;
first one being at the betel shop of the deceased and
the second one near M/s Aditya Electronics, located
40­45 yards north of the site of the first explosion. 
53. With regard to explosions which took place on the date of
incident, the High Court has considered the evidence of PW­7,
PW­1, and PW­9 and observed as under:
“This Court on consideration of the aforesaid material
and   nature   of   evidence   is   satisfied   that   the
allegations   against   the   accused   cannot   be   stated   to
have been proved beyond  all reasonable doubts. The
several   inconsistencies,   contradictions   in   the
statement   of   the   witnesses   and   other   necessary
materials   leave   this   Court   satisfied   that   they   have
attempted  to  conceal  more  than  they have sought to
reveal   of   the   occurrence.   A   different   manner   and
sequence   of   the   occurrence   appears   to   have   been
presented by the prosecution for their convenience in
a   truncated   manner   implicating   those   desired   and
exonerating those against whom the allegations were
originally  made  also.  There is not a semblance  of  an
explanation   for   exonerating   those   earlier   accused
with a primal role and those with regard to whom no

50
statement   was   made   before   the   Police.   All   these
factors cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case.
The   informant,   in   Court,   has   given   up   the   entire
genesis and the  manner  of occurrence  when the two
co­accused   have   been   exonerated.   The   informant
having   implicitly   accepted   false   implication,   cannot
be trusted of telling the truth. The principle of   falsus
in   uno,   falsus   in   omnibus   has   no   application   in   the
facts   of   the   case,   when   the   prosecution   has   itself
knocked   out   the   basis   edifice   of   its   own   case   as
distinct from peripheral issues.
The prosecution despite the nature of evidence given
by  its  witnesses,  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to   re­
examine them under Section 137 of the Evidence Act
or   cross­examine   them   under   Section   154   of   the
same.
The   illicit   liquor   trade   rivalry   revealed   during   trial
between   the   two   sides,   leaves   this   Court   satisfied
that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the
charge cannot be stated to have been proved beyond
all   reasonable   doubt.   On   the   contrary,   the
prosecution   has   created   a   cobweb   for   itself   and
enmeshed itself, the benefit of which has to go to the
accused.
Unfortunately,   the   trial   court   ignoring   all   these
crucial   issues   inverted   the   law   to   hold   that   the
defence   was   based   on   surmises   and   conjectures   to
hold the appellants guilty and there could not be two
views   of   the   occurrence   to   grant   any   benefit   to   the
accused. And all this, while unquestionably granting
acquittal   to   Chandra   Bhanu,   Dhappu   Ram   and
Fantus   as   a   case   of   no   evidence.   This   Court   finds   it
difficult   to   uphold   the   conviction   let   alone   the   death
sentence.
The   manner   in   which   the   trial   proceeded   as   noticed
above,   leaves   the   impression   that   the   prosecution
witnesses   considered   the   court   room   as   a   playing
field   for   a   friendly   match.   Unfortunately,   the   trial
court   assumed   the   role   of   a   referee   forgetting   the

51
important role that it had to play in the dispensation
of   justice   dealing   with   the   serious   issue   of   a   death
sentence and life imprisonment affecting not only the
liberty but also the life of a citizen.
The   subversion   of   the   legal   maxim   presumed
innocent   till   proved   guilty   to   say   the   least   was
unfortunate.
We are satisfied that the present case is a fit case for
initiating   proceedings   of   perjury   against   P.W.7,
Rajesh   Prasad   son   of   Late   Chhote   Lal   Prasad.   We,
accordingly   direct   the   trial   court   to   initiate
proceedings, hold inquiry in accordance with law and
pass appropriate orders.” 
54. We   have   extracted   the   observations   made   by   the   High
Court   while   reversing   the   judgment   of   conviction   giving
categorical reasons for doing so. We also observe that the Fast
Track Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs­1, 3, 4
and   7   in   their   proper   perspective   and   has   further   failed   to
recognise the fact that PW­7/the appellant herein did not at all
support   the   case   of   the   prosecution   although   he   was   the
informant   and   hence,   erroneously   convicted   the   accused   and
sentenced   two   of   them   with   death   penalty   and   the   third
accused   with   imprisonment   for   life.     In   our   view,   the   High
Court   was,   therefore,   justified   in   reversing   the   judgment   and
order of conviction passed by the Fast­Track Court.

52
55. It   is   also   noted   that   the   State   has   not   filed   any   appeal
against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High
Court. 
56. Having   re­appreciated   the   evidence   of   the   witnesses,   we
find   that   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   reversing   the
judgment of conviction and sentencing the two of the accused,
namely   Munna   Ram   and   Mahendra   Ram   with   death   penalty
and imposing Upendra Ram to  undergo life imprisonment and
instead acquitting all the accused.  
57.  Further,   the   High   Court   has   stated   that   this   is   a  fit   case
for initiating proceedings of perjury against the appellant (PW­
7)   herein.   No   doubt,   the   appellant   herein   who   was   the
informant   did   not   at   all   support   the   case   of   the   prosecution
during   trial   and   as   a   result,   the   High   Court   acquitted   the
accused.     However,   having   regard   to   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   these   cases   and   bearing   in   mind   that   there
were   two   deaths   in   the   incident   that   occurred   on   10 th
  March,
2005 which has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, we
set aside only that portion of the impugned judgment and order
directing   the   trial   court   to   initiate   proceedings   of   perjury

53
against   the   appellant   herein.   We   affirm   the   rest   of   the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court. 
58. The   appeals   are   allowed   in   part   to   the   aforesaid   extent
only.
……………………………..J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…………………………….J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
……………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
NEW DELHI;
7 th
 JANUARY, 2022.