1978 (11) TMI 159 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal and Conviction under Section 302, IPC
2. Testimony and Evidence Evaluation
3. Motive and Circumstantial Evidence
4. Principles for Interference with Acquittal

Summary:

1. Acquittal and Conviction under Section 302, IPC:
The appellant was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chittor, of an offence u/s 302, IPC. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed this acquittal, convicting the appellant u/s 302, IPC, and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

2. Testimony and Evidence Evaluation:
The prosecution's case was that the appellant stabbed his wife, Subhadramma, in the presence of witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3. The learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution's evidence to be 'discrepant, conflicting and improbable,' leading to the appellant's acquittal. However, the High Court found no reason to doubt the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3, considering the discrepancies minor and the evidence corroborated by P.Ws. 4 and 5. The High Court concluded that the medical evidence supported the prosecution's version, not the defense's.

3. Motive and Circumstantial Evidence:
The appellant argued that he had no motive to kill his wife and that his version of events was more probable. The High Court observed that the appellant might have been upset by the refusal of the deceased's family to send her to his house, which could have led to the incident. The High Court dismissed the defense's argument that the injury could have been caused in the manner suggested by the accused, finding the prosecution's version more plausible.

4. Principles for Interference with Acquittal:
The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court should not interfere with the trial court's acquittal if two views were possible. The Supreme Court reiterated that the Appellate Court has the right to review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions, as established in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Sheo Swarup v. Emperor. The Court emphasized that fanciful and remote possibilities must be excluded, and any doubt must be reasonable. The High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal as the trial court had rejected credible evidence for slender reasons and taken a barely possible view of the evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no substance in the appellant's submissions and upheld the High Court's decision to convict the appellant u/s 302, IPC. The appeal was dismissed.