NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2119 OF 2010

STATE OF RAJASTHAN                              APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KISTOORA RAM                                      RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1.

The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 15^th

September 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan  at  Jodhpur   in  D.B.   Criminal  Appeal  No.  25   of

1986, thereby acquitting the respondent­accused herein and

reversing the judgment dated 10^th  January 1986 passed by

the   learned   District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Jodhpur

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “trial   court”)   in   Original

Criminal   Case   No.114   of   1984,   thereby   convicting   the

respondent­accused herein under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentencing him to

undergo life imprisonment. The respondent­accused was also

convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to

1

Digitally signed by Dr.

Mukesh Nasa

Date: 2022.08.08

16:23:20 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment.

2.

The   respondent–accused   was   charged   for   an   offence

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. It is the

prosecution case that the accused had killed his wife with a

lathi, dragged her 100 feet away from the house and set her

on fire in order to destroy the evidence.

3.

The   trial   court,   after   appreciating   the   evidence,

convicted the respondent–accused for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer life

imprisonment   with   a   fine   of   Rs.100/­.     The   respondent­

accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’

rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/­.

4.

Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the   respondent­accused

preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court,

vide   impugned   judgment,   allowed   the   appeal   thereby

reversing the order of conviction and acquitted the accused

for the offences charged.  Being aggrieved thereby, the State

of Rajasthan has preferred an appeal before this Court.

5.

We  have  heard  Mr.  Vishal Meghwal,   learned  counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant–State of Rajasthan.

6.

Mr. Meghwal, learned counsel for the appellant­State

has submitted that when the trial court, upon appreciation of

2

evidence   of   Guman   Singh   (PW­4),   had   convicted   the

respondent–accused, there was no reason for the High Court

to interfere with the same. He has submitted that the extra­

judicial confession made by the respondent–accused before

Guman   Singh   (PW­4)   is   such,   which  would   inspire

confidence in the judicial mind. It is submitted that Guman

Singh (PW­4) was an independent witness inasmuch as he

had served in the police department and there was no reason

to disbelief his testimony. It is further submitted that Hamira

Ram (PW­7) though has been declared hostile, part of his

testimony related to extra­judicial confession is trustworthy

and the same corroborates  the testimony of Guman Singh

(PW­4).   He   has,   therefore,   submitted   that   the   impugned

judgment passed by the High Court needs to be set aside and

the judgment of the trial court needs to be confirmed.

7.

We have perused the judgment of the trial court dated

10^th  January  1986   as   well   as   the   High   Court   dated   15^th

September 2009.

8.

The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal

is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the

Court   is   impossible   or   perverse,   it   is   not   permissible   to

interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are

3

possible,   it   is   not   permissible   to   set   aside   an   order   of

acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way

of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be

warranted only if the vi