IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.155 OF 2006

Ghurey Lal

… Appellant

Versus

State of U.P.

… Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High

Court of Allahabad dated 11^th November, 2005 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1981.

2.

This is a murder case in which the trial court acquitted

the accused. The High Court reversed the trial court’s

decision, finding the accused guilty. In doing so, the appellate

court failed to give proper weight to the views of the trial court

as to credibility of witnesses, thereby ignoring the standards

by which the appellate courts consider appeals against

acquittals.

3.

We have endeavoured to set out the guidelines for the

appellate courts in dealing with appeals against acquittal. An

overriding theme emanates from the law on appeals against

acquittals. The appellate court is given wide powers to review

the evidence to come to its own conclusions. But this power

must be exercised with great care and caution. In order to

ensure that the innocents are not punished, the appellate

court should attach due weight to the lower court’s acquittal

because the presumption of innocence is further strengthened

by the acquittal. The appellate court should, therefore,

reverse an acquittal only when it has “very substantial and

compelling reasons.”

4.

In giving our reasons for reversing the appellate court’s

judgment and restoring that of the trial court, we provide a

2

brief review of the facts, the reasoning of the trial and High

Court as well as the standards by which appeals against

acquittals are reviewed according to settled principles of

criminal jurisprudence in our country.

5.

Before turning to the facts that were before the trial

court, we note that there is an interesting coincidence in this

case. The names of both the accused and the deceased are

Ghurey Lal. Therefore, to avoid confusion, we have referred to

them as “accused” and “deceased.”

6.

Brief facts, according to prosecution, which are

necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as

under:-

It appears that at the heart of this matter lies a property

dispute. The accused testified in favour of his great-grand

daughter, Ram Devi. This testimony went against the

deceased, creating enmity between the parties.

3

7.

On 14.3.1979, the deceased, Shiv Charan P.W.1, Brij Raj

Singh P.W.2, Yad Ram P.W.4, Nathi Lal (not examined) and

Bishambhar (not examined) had taken the customary Gur

(Jaggery) during the Holi festival.

8.

On their way home, they happened to pass by the home

of the accused. The accused was standing just outside his

home and was holding a shot gun. The accused began to

verbally abuse the deceased. Thereafter, the accused fired one

single shot from his gun, killing the deceased with a bullet

and causing injuries to Brij Raj Singh P.W. 2 with pellets.

Hearing the gun shot, some people quickly assembled at the

scene. The accused fled to his room, which he locked from

inside. The uncle of the deceased, Shiv Charan, lodged the

FIR that very evening, the 14^th March, 1979 at 6.15 p.m., at

the Barhan Police Station in the District of Agra.

9.

The accused provided his own version of the event.

According to the statement of the accused under section 313

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he went to the place of

Kanchan Singh where Gur (Jaggery) was being distributed.

4

One Bal Mukand told the accused to leave the Gur

distribution ceremony, as the deceased, Brij Raj Singh P.W. 2,

Yad Ram P.W.4, Nathi Lal and Bishambhar had collected

pharsa, lathis and kattas declaring that they will deal with

him (accused) when he comes there. On hearing this, the

accused returned to his home and grabbed his gun. The

deceased and others then arrived at his home, brandishing

weapons. Th