Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, acquitted the appellant of the charge that he had committed the murder of his wife s brother, Narayan. Setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court of Bombay has convicted the appellant under Section 302, Penal Code, and has sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The main question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.

2. The appellant was married to Lata, sister of the deceased Narayan in 1957. Towards the beginning of 1967 Lata came to Bombay and was staying with her parents at Bhandup. Appellant wanted Lata to go back to him and that led to disputes between him and the deceased. It is alleged that at about 5-30 p.m. on May 12, 1967, the appellant stabbed Narayan while the latter was sitting in a shop called Regal Stores owned by one Ramnath Aurora. Narayan died on his way to the hospital and it was a week later that the appellant was arrested at Rhishikesh.

3. Denying that he had committed the murder of Narayan the appellant contended that he was at Kharda, district Ahmednagar, on the date of the incident and that a few days thereafter he had gone to Rhishikesh where he was put under arrest.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case, out of whom Ramnath Aurora (P. W. 5) and Bhanushali Parpia (P. W. 6) are alleged to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence. From out of the remaining witnesses, the only ones whose evidence is now relevant are Sumitra (P. W. 2) sister of deceased Narayan, Lata (P. W. 7) another sister of the deceased and the wife of the appellant, and a police constable called Kevalaprasad Rai (P. W. 11).

5. The age-old controversy with regard to the width and scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal must be taken as settled by the decision of this court in Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1961) 3 SCR 120 It was held therein that the appellant Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and that the different phrases used in some of the judgments of this court like "substantial and compelling reasons , "good and sufficiently cogent reasons , and "strong reasons , were not intended to curtail the undoubted power of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion in an appeal against acquittal. It was, however, emphasised that in exercising this power the appellate court, while dealing with an order of acquittal, 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 but it must express its reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. Following this decision this court in Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 460 held that to the tests laid down in Sanwant Singh s case may be added another that the appellate court must bear in mind the fact that the trial court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal. Therefore, "if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of the trial court. If this additional test is applied to the instant case the conclusion is compulsive that the High Court has exceeded its powers in setting aside the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

6. We will only refer to a few outstanding facts in order to demonstrate how, at any rate, two views of the evidence are reasonably possible in this case. It might even be possible to take a step further and say that the conclusion recorded by the trial court is to be preferred on the facts and circumstances of the case. But this court does not ordinarily embark upon a fresh a