N Criminal Appeal No 224 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order Dated 8173 of the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Appeal No 776 of 1970
Naunit Lal  Kailash Vasdev
for the appellant
BD Sharma for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD CJ
Four persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge Bhilwara under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code
The learned Judge acquitted three out of the four accused and convicted only one of them namely Kanahiya Lal
The High Court of Rajasthan confirmed the conviction of Kanahiya Lal as also the acquittal of two out of the three persons who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge
The High Court however set aside the acquittal of the appellant convicted him under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment
Since the High Court has set aside an order of acquittal and has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment it is necessary to consider whether two views of the evidence are reasonably possible and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant
Having approached the case and assessed the evidence from that point of view we are of the opinion that it is impossible to agree with the view taken by the trial court
The High Court has specifically dealt with reasons given by the trial court in support of the order of acquittal and has demonstrated in a good measure as to why those reasons cannot be accepted
We concur in the High Court s appreciation of evidence
The incident out of which the prosecution arose happened at about 8 pm On September 29 1968 at Bhilwara Rajasthan leading to the death of one Gyanchand
The motive for the offence is alleged to be that Gyanchand s brother Nemi Chand owed money to accused Nos 3 and 4 Ram Niwas and Badri Lal
Nemi Chand was evading to pay the debt which created bitterness between the two brothers on one hand and accused Nos 3 and 4 on the other
The latter it is alleged procured the help of the appellant and of Kanahiya Lal in doing Gyanchand to death
861 The prosecution examined a few witnesses in support of its case but it is unnecessary to refer to the evidence of each one of them
The most important witness in the case is Bodu Lal PW 2
He is an independent witness in whose cycle rickshaw the appellant and the co accused Kanahiya Lal travelled from the hotel of Shankar Maharaj to the scene of offence
Bodu Lal identified the appellant in the identification parade
According to his evidence the appellant was wearing a yellow baniyan at the time of the incident
When the appellant was arrested
a yellow baniyan was found on his person and it was stained with human blood
A knife stained with human blood was also recovered from his person
The High Court has convicted the appellant relying on the evidence of Bodu Lal as corroborated by the discovery of the blood stained baniyan and knife
This evidence seems to us unassailable
Accordingly we dismiss this appeal and confirm the judgment of the High Court
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant along with Kanahiya Lal Ram Niwas and Badri Lal was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and tried for the offence of murder of one Gyanchand by the Sessions Judge Bhilwara Rajasthan
The learned Judge convicted and sentenced Kanahiya Lal alone to life imprisonment and acquitted the rest
In appeal the High Court of Rajasthan while confirming the conviction of Kanahiya Lal as also the acquittal of two out of the three persons convicted and sentenced the appellant also to life imprisonment
Hence the appeal under the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1970
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD Since the High Court set aside an order of acquittal and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment it is necessary for the Supreme Court to consider whether two views of the evidence are reasonably possible and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant
Approaching the case and assessing the evidence from that point of view it is clear that the conviction of the appellant in view of the evidence of Bodu Lal as corroborated by the discovery of the blood stained baniyan and knife is unassailable
He is an independent and the most important witness in whose cycle rickshaw the appellant and the co accused Kanhiya Lal travelled from the hotel of Shankar Maharaj to the scene of offence
Bodu Lal identified the appellant in the identification parade and his evidence as to the colour of baniyan worn by the appellant at the time of the incident tallied with that of the one stained with human blood and recovered from the accused
A knife stained with human blood also recovered from his person confirmed his guilt
860E F 861 B C 860