iminal Appeal No 17 of 1971
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the June 1 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1931 of 1969 and Referred No 182 of 1969
D P Uniyal and O P Rana for the Appellant
59 A section R Chari section K Mehta K L Mehta and K R Nagaraja for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna J
Samman Dass alias Samman Lal aged 19 years was convicted by Sessions Judge Faizabad under section 302 IPC for causing the death of his wife Putlibai by throttling her and was sentenced to death
On appeal as well as in the reference made to it for the confirmation of the death sentence the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of the accused and acquitted him
The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave against the above judgment of the High Court
The accused was married to Putlibai who was near about of the same age as the accused on May 14 1968
Putlibai was the daughter of Gurmukh Das PW 8 of Azamgarh while the accused is the son of Shobhamal of Faizabad
The accused lived with his parents in quarter No 1831 in Ram Nagar Colony of Faizabad
More than 300 familities of Sindhis live in this locality
The non Sindhis occupy only a couple of houses
There are a number of blocks of buildings in the colony
Each of those blocks consists of ten quarters
Apart from the accused and his parents his uncle Parumal and the wife of Parumal who is sister of the mother of the accused also lives in his quarter
The accused had been engaged to Putlibai about a year before the marriage
According to the prosecution case about 5 or 6 months after the engagement the accused went to the house of Gurmukh Das in Azamgarh to see Putlibai
After having a look at Putlibai the accused came to Faizabad and stated that he would not marry Putlibai as she was not of fair complexion
When Gurmukh Das PW 8 learnt that the accused had refused to marry his daughter he convened a panchayat
The father of the accused then became agreeable to marry the accused with Putlibai
The marriage accordingly took place on May 14 1969
After the marriage Putlibai came to Faizabad and lived with the accused in his parents  quarter for about two and a half months
Gurmukh Das father of Putlibai it is stated then came and took her to his house
Putlibai after that came to the house of her husband on October 15 1968
The death anniversary of Sain Kanwar Ram a Sindhi saint was celebrated by the Sindhis in Ram Nagar Colony of Faizabad on the night between 17th and 18th October 1968
The singing of the devotional songs continued up to 10 am on October 18 in an open maidan in the Ram Nagar Colony
The said maidan is at about a distance of 90 paces from the quarter of the accused
60 Most of the Sindhis of Ram Nagar Colony attended the celebrations
The Prasad was distributed at about 10 am on the close of the celebrations
The case of the prosecution is that Bhagwan Das PW 1 who is brother of maternal grandfather of Putlibai after taking Prasad took a riksha and started going to his grocery shop in Mohalla Chowk Faizabad
When Bhagwan Das passed in from of the quarter of the accused he heard shrieks
Bhagwan Das then shouted as to what the shrieks were about
Bhagwan Das also went to the front door of the quarter of the accused and knocked there
On hearing the shouts of Bhagwan Das Choith Ram PW 2 Ayal Das alias Ailmal PW 6 Shobhraj PW 7 and one Kirpal Das also joined Bhagwan
Bhagwan Das
Choith Ram Ayal Das and Shobhraj all live in that locality
Choith Ram and Shobhraj were passing through the lane at that time after taking Prasad
Ayal Das who too had taken Prasad was taking water at a place about 4050 paces away from the quarter of the accused when Ayal Das heard shouts
The front door of the quarter of the accused was found bolted from inside and there was no response to the knocking at the door
Bhagwan Das and others who had joined him then went to the back door of the quarter of the accused and knocked at the back door
The back door which opens in a very narrow lane was also found bolted from inside
There was no response even to the knocking at the back door
Bhagwan Das and his companions then thought of going again to the front door of the quarter
When Bhagwan Das and his companions reached near a well at a distance of 10 paces from the back door of the house of the accused they heard the noise of someone jumping
They then looked back and saw the accused who jumped over the back wall of his quarter
The accused wanted to run away but Bhagwan Das and his four companions caught hold of the accused and did not allow him to escape in spite of his entreaties
The accused appeared worried at that time and there was redness in his eyes
At the asking of Bhagwan Das it is alleged Choith Ram PW went inside the quarter of the accused by scaling over the wall which is about 7 feet high
Choith Ram then opened the back door
Bhagwan Das along with the companions went inside the quarter of the accused and found Putlibai lying dead on a cot in one of the rooms of the quarter
The door of this room was slightly open
No one else was present in the quarter at that time
Just then there was a knock at the front door of the quarter
It was opened by Choith Ram
The mother of the accused who had also gone to take Prasad then came inside the quarter
On seeing the dead body of the deceased the mother of the accused started crying
Shobhamal the father of the accused whose shop 61 is situated in Sabzi Mandi came after about one and a half hour
On the arrival of Shobhanial Bhagwan Das told him everything
Shobhamal then wanted to lift the dead body of Putlibai for consigning it in the river but he was told by Choith Ram and others that they would not allow the dead body to be removed till the arrival of the parents of Putlibai
Bhagwan Das in the meanwhile directed one Govardhan Das brother of Choith Ram to go in a taxi to Azamgarh and bring the parents of Putlibai
At about 3 pm it is stated Shobhamal father of the accused stated that there was no idea in keeping the dead body for a long time and that if Bhagwan Das and others had any suspicion a doctor could be sent for
Bhagwan Das and his companions then told Shobhanial to call the doctor
Shobhamal thereupon deputed one Bhagumal to call a doctor
Bhagumal then went and contacted Dr Hansraj Singhal PW 4 at the latter s residence It about 4 pm Dr Singhal it is alleged then went to his clinic and from there took his diagonistic bag and thereafter came to the quarter of the accused
The doctor found the dead body of Putlibai lying on a cot
The colour of her face was blue
The face was swollen and the eyes were slightly open
Pupils were dilated and nonreacting to light
The mouth was slightly open and there were finger marks on the left and right side of her neck
There were also marks of some abrasions on both the elbows besides a contusion on the right palm
As Dr Singhal was concerned only with the question as to whether the death of the deceased was normal or was the result of some foul play he did not make a more detailed examination of the dead body
Dr Singhal came to the conclusion that the death of Putlibai was not natural but was due to throttling
The doctor told this thing to Bhagumal
The doctor added that the police should be informed and that otherwise he would himself inform the police on reaching his clinic
After saying this the doctor left the quarter
After the doctor gone for a distance of about two furlongs he thought of inquiring the name of the deceased her husband and the particulars of the address
He consequently returned to the quarter of the accused and after getting the necessary information went to his clinic
Before reaching the clinic the doctor also telephoned to the police station about the death of Putlibai from a shop near his clinic
In the meanwhile immediately after Dr Singbal had left the quarter of the accused Bhagwan Das PW got a report written by Dayal Das PW 10
The report was then signed by Bhagwan Das and was taken to police station kotwali at a distance of about two miles from the place of occurrence
The report was handed over at the police station at 5 pm Mohd Amin PW 9 62 head clerk in the police station then prepared a formal FIR on the basis of the report of Bhagwan Das
A copy of the first information report was sent to Sub Inspector Ram Gulam Chaudhari who was present in station Fatehganj
The Sub Inspector then went to the quarter of the accused and reached there at about 6 pm
The Sub Inspector took the accused who had been secured at the spot in his custody
The dead body of the deceased was found by the Sub Inspector lying on a cot
After preparing the necessary documents the Sub Inspector sent the dead body to the mortuary
Post mortem examination on the dead body of Putlibai was performed by Dr Vijay Pal PW 3 at 1145 am on October 19 1968
In the opinion of Dr Vijay Pal the death of Putlibai deceased was due to asphyxia caused by throttling
After necessary investigations a challan was put in against the accused
In his statement under section 342 Code of Criminal Proce dure before the committing magistrate the accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that on the day of occurrence he had gone to his father s shop at 9 am
He was called from that shop at 9 30 am after being told that the condition of his wife was serious
The accused then wanted to call a doctor but the doctor was not available
According to the accused he was falsely involved in this case at the instance of Bliagwan Das and Perumal who did not want that he should mart Putlibai
In his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Sessions the accused admitted that he had been married to Putlibai deceased on May 14 1968 and that they had been living together in the quarter of the accused along with the parents of the accused as welt as his uncle and aunt
The accused further admitted that he had been engaged to Putlibai before his marriage but denied that he had refused to marry her
The allegation about the gathering of a panchayat too was denied by the accused
The accused admitted that Putlibai came to the quarter of the accused on October 15 1968
The fact that there was a celebration by the Sindhis living in the locality of the death anniversary of Sain Kanwar Rain on the night between 17th and 18th October 1968 was also admitted by the accused but according to him the Prasad was distributed at 6 or 7 am
The prosecution allegations about the hearing
of shircks from his quarter as well as about his jumping over the back wall was denied by the accused
The accused likewise denied the allegation that he was secured by Bhagwan Das and others
The accused added that Bhagwan Das Choith Ram and father of Cloitli Ram were inimical to him because they did not want Putlibai to marry the accused
63 According to the accused on the day of occurrence he had gone to his father s shop at about 9 am
Thereafter he came to the place of occurrence at about 11 or 1130 am on being told that the condition of his wife was serious
In defence five witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused
The purport of the defence evidence was that on the day of occurrence at 1030 or 11 am the aunt of the accused called Tikam Das DW 2 who is the cousin of the mother of the accused and lives in the neighbourhood and told him to go to the shop of the father of the accused and inform him about the serious condition of Putlibai deceased
Tikam Das then went to the shop of the father of the accused and met the accused and his father there and conveyed the message to them
Evidence was also led to show that the accused called two doctors and sent a telegram about the death of the deceased to his sister s husband
The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence found that the following facts had been proved by the prosecution 1
The accused was the only person in the quarter and therefore with the deceased immediately before at the time of and immediately after her murder
Instead of getting out of the quarter in the usual way he scaled the rear wall and jumped into the back lane immediately after the murder of the deceased
3When he was caught as soon as lie jumped he was nonplused his eyes were red shot and he begged to be let off which exhibited his guilty consciences Reference was further made to the fact that the accused had failed to explain as to why he had jumped from the back wall of his quarter and had tried to run away
It was also pointed out that the accused had made false denials and put forth false plea of alibi
The above circumstances in the opinion of the Sessions Judge were consistent only with the guilt of the accused
The defence evidence produced by the accused was found to be not worthy of credence and was rejected
In the result the accused was convicted for the murder of Putlibai and was sentenced to death
When the matter came up before the High Court the learned Judges held that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused had a motive for the murder of Putlibai
In the opinion of the learned Judges the circumstances in which the death of Putlibai had occurred must have created a strong suspicion against the accused
He was consequently involved in this case
64 The learned Judges seem to have taken the view that the first information report was not lodged at the time when it purports to have been made
It was also observed that the only witness who appeared to be independent was PW Shobharaj
His statement was found to be not true because the witness had given the distance of his quarter from that of the accused as 50 paces while according to another witness the distance was 150 paces
In the result
the conviction of the accused was set aside and he was acquitted
We have heard Mr Unyal on behalf of the appellant and Mr Chari on
behalf of the accused respondent and are of the opinion that the High Court set aside the conviction of the accused on grounds which are wholly untenable
There can be no manner of doubt that Putlibai deceased was throttled to death
The evidence of Dr Vijay Pal PW 7 who performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Putlibai deceased shows that he found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Putlibai  Finger marks were present in front of the neck
These marks looked like brownish and dry
On the left side of the neck in front upper and outer part thumb mark was present which measured 1 x 12  and the upper part of which was 12  below the mandible
On the right side of the neck in front upper and outer part of 4 finger marks were present in oblique directions downwards and outwards one below the other measuring 1 x 12 34x 12 12 x 12 and 14 x 14 the upper most mark was 12  below the mandible
 Besides the above injuries there was a contusion on the right thinner eminence and two abrasions on the elbows
Extravascular blood was present in the subcutaneous tissues of the neck under the finger marks in the adjacent muscles of the neck
There was fracture of the corner of the hyoid bone
The larynx the trachea the lungs the liver the gall bladder the spleen and the kidneys were congested
Dr Vijay Pal accordingly came to the conclusion that the death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling
The doctor added that the time of the death of the deceased could be about 1030 am on October 18 1968
According to the prosecution case the death of Putlibai deceased was caused by the accused while the accused has denied this allegation
The Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence in this respect but the same was found by the High Court to be not such as could warrant a conviction of the accused
In order to prove the case against the accused the prosecution examined Bhagwan Das PW 1 Choith Ram PW 2 65 Ayal Das PW 6 and Shobhraj PW 7
According to Bhagwan Das PW he heard shrieks when he passed in front of the quarter of the accused at about 1030 am on the day of occurrence
The witness then shouted as to what the matter was about and was immediately joined by the other three witnesses and Kirpal Das
The witness then knocked at the front door as well as at the back door of the quarter of the accused but got no response
Just then the witness and his companions saw the accused jumping over the rear wall of his quarter in the back lane
The accused was then secured and was not allowed to escape in spite of his entreaties
Choith Ram PW then entered the quarter by scaling over the back wall and opened the door
When Bhagwan Das and his companions went inside they found Putlibai lying dead on the cot
Bhagwan Das also deposed about the report lodged by him with the police after Dr Singhal had declared that Putlibai had been throttled to death
The above evidence of Bhagwan Das is corroborated by the evidence of Choith Ram PW 2 Ayal Das PW 6 and Shobhraj PW 7
The evidence of the above mentioned four witnesses was found by the learned Sessions Judge to be convincing and reliable
After having been taken through that evidence we see no cogent ground to take a view different from that of the Sessions Judge
It is no doubt true that Bhagwan Das PW is the brother of Bangamal maternal grandfather of Putlibai deceased and that sister of Choith Ram PW is married to Bangamal
It is also true that Ayal Dass PW is a cousin of Gurumukh Das father of Putlibai
The relationship of the above mentioned three witnesses to Putlibai deceased would in our opinion be not a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony
It is well known that the close relatives of a murdered person are most reluctant to spare the real assailant  and falsely involve another person in place of the assailant
Had Putlibai been killed by some other person the natural conduct of the above mentioned three witnesses who were related to Putlibai on her parents  side would have been to offer sympathy to Samman Dass accused and help him in the apprehension of the real culprit rather than to falsely involve him in the murder of his wife
There is no cogent evidence on the record to show that any of the above mentioned three witnesses had any animus against the accused
The accused no doubt took the plea that the above mentioned witnesses were against his marriage with Putlibai but that suggestion has been denied by these witnesses
Apart from the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses we have the evidence of Shobhraj PW
Shobhraj is a wholly dis interested witness and we see no cogent ground whatsoever as to why his evidence be not accepted
The fact that according to 66 Shobbraj his quarter was at a distance of about 50 paces from the quarter of the accused while according to Bhagwan Das PW the quarter of Shobhraj is at a distance of 150 paces from that of the accused would not go to show that Shobhraj is not as held by the High Court a truthful witness
The difference in the estimate of the distance of the quarter of the accused from that of Shobhraj is not of great significance because nothing hinges on that distance
According to Shobhraj he arrived at the scene of occurrence not from his quarter but from the place where the celebrations of Sain Kanwar Ram were being held
The afore said place is at a distance of less than 100 paces from the quarter of the accused
The view of the High Court that the first information report was not lodged at the police station at the time viz 5 pm at which it purports to have been lodged is based upon mere conjecture
According to Bhagwan Das PW immediately after Dr Singhal had declared at about 430 pm that Putlibai had been throttled to death he Bhagwan Das got written report from Dayal Das PW 10 and signed it
The report was then sent to the police station
The evidence of Bhagwan Das in this respect is corroborated by Dayal Das PW
We have then the evidence of Mohd Amin PW 9
Mohd Amin was head clerk in police station Kotwali in those days
According to Mohd Amin the report was handed over to him at the police station at 5 pm on October 18 1968
The witness then prepared the formal first information report
An entry was also made in the general diary of police station at that time
The witness further sent special report regarding this case at 520 pm on that very day
Nothing was brought out in cross examination to shake the evidence of Mohd Amin
Apart from the fact that no reason has been shown as to why the evidence of Bhagwan Das and Mohd Amin be not accepted regarding the time at which the first information report was lodged at the police station we find that there was not even a remote suggestion in the cross examination of Mohd Amin that the formal first information report was not prepared at the police station at the time viz pm at which it purports to have been prepa red
In the absence of any material pointing to the inference that the formal first information report was not prepared at 5 pm the High Court in our view acted erroneously in holding on the basis of a pure surmise that the first information report had not been lodged at the police station at 5 pm
We are also not impressed by the argument that the police acted on the telephonic intimation received from Dr Singhal According to Dr Singhal he sent the telephonic intimation after 5 pm while the report of Bhagwan Das had been lodged at the police station at 5 pm Dr Singhal s evidence shows that after 67 examining the dead body of Putlibai at about 430 pm he proceeded in a riksha to his clinic
After he had gone for a distance of two furlongs he thought of getting details about the name of the deceased her husband s name and address
He accordingly returned to the quarter of the accused and got the necessary particulars
After that he again proceeded towards his clinic but his riksha was held up at the railway level crossing because the gate at the crossing remained closed for 10 minutes
In the cir cumstances we find no reason to reject the prosecution evidence that the police acted upon the report lodged by Bhagwan Das PW
Coming to the question as to whether there was a delay in lodging the report we find that the evidence on record shows that after Putlibai had been found dead the father of the accused showed inclination to consign her dead body to the river
Bhagwan Das then insisted that the dead body of Putlibai should not be disposed of till the arrival of her parents
The father of the accused thereupon agreed to send for a doctor
Dr Singhal was accordingly called and he stated after examining the dead body that the deceased had been throttled to death
Immediately thereafter Bhagwan Das got the report written from Dayal Das and lodged it at the police station
In our opinion there was no inordinate delay in lodging the report
It is obvious that Bhagwan Das did not lodge the report till such time as he was certain that the death of Putlibai deceased was not natural but was due to violence
The present was not a case wherein the deceased had been killed by some sharp edged weapon or a fire arm or wherein the deceased had been killed by sharp edged weapon or a fire arm or wherein the body of the deceased had been found lying in a pool of blood
In such a case there can be no doubt about the death being not natural
In cases
however of death caused by poisoning or throttling a layman cannot be very sure of the cause of death and we find nothing improbable in the conduct of Bbagwan Das PW in not lodging the report till he learnt from Dr Singhal that death of the deceased was due to throttling
Bhagwan Das Choith Ram Ayal Das and Shobhraj PWs reside in the locality wherein the occurrence took place
The fact that no one from the quarters adjoining that of the accused has been examined by the prosecution would not in our opinion introduce an infirmity in the prosecution case
The evidence Bhagwan Das shows that the adjoining quarters were closed at the time of the occurrence as most of the people in the locality had gone to attend the celebrations of Sain Kanwar Ram
Argument was advanced by Mr Chari that it would not be a natural act of the accused to have made the murderous assault on his wife at about 1030 am when the people were moving in the lane in front of his quarter
In this respect we 68 find that the accused chose the moment when no one else was present in the house
The fact that no one was present there to witness the actual murder of the deceased might well have been considered by the accused to be an opportune time
Different individuals act differently in a given situation and we find nothing improbable in the act of the accused in committing the murder of his wife at about 1030 am on the day of occurrence
It has also been submitted by Mr Chari that there was no sufficient motive for the accused to murder his wife
In this respect we find that the evidence of Choith Ram PW 2 shows that the accused has told him that he did not like Putlibai
We have then the evidence of Bhagwan Das PW as well as that of Gurmukh Das PW father of Putlibai that when it was learnt that the accused was reluctant to marry Putlibai Gurmukh Das convened a panchayat
The accused was thereafter married to Putlibai
The evidence on record thus reveals that the accused was forced to mary Putlibai in spite of his dislike because of the convening of the panchayat
It cannot in the circumstances be said that the accused had no motive to cause the death of his wife
The learned judges of The High Court too took the view that the accused had a motive to cause the death of the deceased
In any case motive is not very material when the other evidence clearly points to the guilt of the accused
Reference has also been made by Mr Chari to the fact that there is no evidence about the existence of any injury on the person of the accused
It is urged that the deceased while being throttled must have offered resistance and thus
there would have been an injury on the person of the accused because of that resistance
We are not impressed by this argument because resistance by the deceased resulting in injuries to the assailant is not a necessary feature of every act of throttling
Different victims can act differently and it would depend upon a variety of circumstances as to whether they were or not in a position to offer resistance
The absence of injuries on the person of the accused would not go to show that he was not the person who had throttled the deceased to death
So far as the defence evidence is concerned the same was disbelieved by the Sessions Judge
The defence evidence was also not relied upon by the High Court ostensibly because no effort was made to rely upon that evidence
Likewise no effort has been made in this Court to rely upon the defence evidence
There is no eyewitness of the actual occurrence but on the material on record we find that the following circumstances have been proved against the accused
69 1 The accused was alone with the deceased in his quarter at about 1030 am on the day of occurrence
2 Shrieks were heard at that time from inside the quarter of the accused
3 Both the front and the back doors of the quarter of the accused were found to be bolted from inside
Those doors were not opened inspite of shouting and knocking
4 The accused soon thereafter jumped over the rear wall into the back lane
He wanted to run away but was secured by Bhagwan Das and other witnesses
This accused appeared to be upset at that time and in sipte of his entreaties he was not allowed to go away
5 Immediately thereafter Bhagwan Das and other witnesses went inside the quarter and found Putlibai wife of the accused lying dead on a cot
6 According to medical evidence the deceased had been throttled to death at about 1030 am on that day
7 The accused had an animus against Putlibai because he was forced to marry her in spite of the fact that he did not like her
All the above circumstances in our opinion clearly point to the conclusion that the accused was the murderer of Putlibai
The above circumstances are inconsistent with his innocence
Mr Chari has referred to the case of the State of Madras vs A Vaidvanatha Iyer 1 wherein this Court held that the words used in article 136 of the Constitution show that in criminal matters no distinction can be made as a matter of construction between a judgment of conviction and one of acquittal
This Court it was further observed would not readily interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court but if the High Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly interference will be called for
In our opinion the accused respondent can derive not much assistance from the above authority because the High Court in the present case reversed the finding of conviction on grounds which were wholly untenable
The view taken by the High Court is clearly unreasonable and is not warranted by the material on record
The fact that the High Court in a reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to appraise the evidence for itself and has to arrive at its own independent conclusion would not prevent this Court from interfering with the order of the High Court if the High Court reverses the judgment of the trial court on grounds which are manifestly fallacious and untenable
1  7 0 This Court in an appeal under article 136 of the Constitution does not normally reappraise the evidence and interfere with the assessment of that evidence by the High Court
Where however this Court finds that grave injustice has been done by the High Court in interfering with the decision of the trial court on grounds which are plainly untenable and the view taken by the High Court in interfering with the decision of the trial court on this Court would not stay its hand
There are however certain cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal
Firstly there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind especially when the accused has been acquitted by the court below secondly if two views of the matter are possible a view favourable to the accused should be taken thirdly in case of acquittal by the trial judge the appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanor of witnesses and fourthly the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
The doubt should however be reasonable and as observed recently by this Court the doubt should be such which rational thinking men will reasonably honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy though unwittingly it may be or is afraid of the logical consequences if that benefit was not given
To put it differently it is not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism see Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Shri Om Parkash Cr
Appeal 67 of 1969 decided on December 7 1971
We therefore accept the appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and convict the accused respondent under section 302 IPC As regards the sentence we find that the occurrence took place more than three years ago
The accused was aged about 19 years at the time of the trial
Looking to all he circumstances we are of the opinion that we need not award the extreme penalty in this case
We accordingly sentence the accused to undergo imprisonment for life
KBN Appeal allowed


Summary:
The fact that the High Court in a reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to appraise the evidence for itself and has to arrive at its own independent conclusion would not prevent this Court from interfering with the order of the High Court if the High Court reverses the judgment of the trial court on grounds which are manifestly fallacious and untenable
This Court in an appeal under article 136 of the Constitution does not normally reappraise the evidence and interfere with the assessment of that evidence by the High Court
Where however this Court finds that grave injustice has been done by the High Court in interfering with the decision of the trial court on grounds which are plainly untenable and the view taken by the High Court is clearly unreasonable on the evidence on record this Court would not stay its hand
There are however certain cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal
Firstly there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind especially when the accused has been acquitted by the Court below  Secondly if two views of the matter are possible a view favourable to the accused should be taken thirdly in case of acquittal by the trial judge the appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and fourthly the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
The doubt should however be reasonable and should be such as a rational thinking man will reasonably honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy though unwittingly it may be or is afraid of the logical consequences if that benefit was not given
To put it differently it is not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral courage to decide but shelters itself in a vain and idle scepticism
69H 70E Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Shri Om Prakash Cr
Appeal No 67 of 1969 decided on December 7 1971 referred to