BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 48, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 48 : 2024 INSC 258
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another 
v. 
The State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018)
02 April 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court whether justified in reversing the acquittal of the 
appellant Nos.1 and 2 and convicting them u/ss.302 and 201/34 
and ss.302/34 and 201, Penal Code, 1860 respectively and 
sentencing accordingly; whether the prosecution proved its case 
beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellants were guilty 
of committing the crime.
Headnotes
Appeal against acquittal – Interference – When not sustainable:
Held: Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence – Trial 
Judge gave sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony 
of the IO and the other witnesses and by elaborately discussing 
the evidence found that the appellants were not guilty – Findings of 
the trial Judge were based on correct appreciation of the material 
placed on record – This elaborate exercise of the trial Judge was 
washed away by the Division Bench of the High Court in a totally 
cursory manner – Though the High Court referred to the law laid 
down by this Court with regard to the scope of interference in 
an appeal against acquittal, it totally misapplied the same and a 
very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct appreciation 
of evidence by the trial Court was reversed only on the basis of 
conjectures and surmises – High Court could have interfered 
in
the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the 
findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible – No 
perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted 
by the trial Judge – Furthermore, in any case, even if two views 
were possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be 
more probable, an interference would not have been warranted 
by the High Court, unless the view taken by the trial Judge was 
a perverse or impossible view – Prosecution failed to prove any
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
49
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and 
in no case, the chain of circumstances, which was so interlinked 
to each other that led to no other conclusion, than the guilt of the 
accused persons – Judgment passed by the High Court being 
unsustainable is quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted. 
[Paras 6, 12-14, 16, 19-23]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Law as regards 
conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Discussed.
Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 
[1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – relied on.
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. [2016] 1 SCR 
913 : (2016) 4 SCC 397; Harljan Bhala Teja v. State 
of Gujarat [2016] 2 SCR 203 : (2016) 12 SCC 665 – 
referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence 
Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Appeal against acquittal; Circumstantial evidence; Chain of 
circumstances not interlinked; Case not proved beyond reasonable 
doubt; Conjectures and surmises; Findings perverse or impossible; 
Two possible views; Perverse or impossible view.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1167 
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2018 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Cr. A. No.261 of 1995
Appearances for Parties
Varun Thakur, Ramkaran, Ms. Shraddha Saran, Brajesh Pandey, 
Varinder Kumar Sharma,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Vikas Bansal, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Ms. 
Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, 
Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Ms. Ruby, Advs. for the Respondent.
50
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
1.	
The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 6th April 2018 
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal 
Appeal No. 261 of 1995, thereby allowing the appeal of the respondent-
State which was filed challenging the judgment dated 26th March 1994 
passed in S.T. No. 160 of 1992, vide which the learned 2nd Class 
Sessions Judge, Damoh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial 
Judge’) had acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 
302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred 
to as ‘IPC’). The High Court, reversing the judgment of the learned 
trial Judge, had convicted the appellant No. 1 (Ballu Chaurasiya @ 
Balram @ Balmukund) under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC and 
appellant No. 2 (Halki Bahu @ Jamna Bai @ Jamuna Bai) under 
Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment 
for life under Sections 302 and 302/34 with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default 
of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three 
months. Insofar as Sections 201 and 201/34 of IPC are concerned, 
the High Court further awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment 
for seven years with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine 
to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months.
2.	
The prosecution story in brief is as under: 
2.1	 The deceased-Mahesh Sahu was in a love relation
with Anita, 
who is the daughter of respondent No.2-Jamna Bai (appellant 
No.2 herein) and sister of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund 
(appellant No.1 herein). Anita and deceased Mahesh Sahu 
resided at Agra for about eight months and then returned to 
Damoh. Thereafter, the marriage of Anita was solemnized with 
another person. Even then, they were in contact with each other. 
Due to this enmity, on 7th June, 1992 at about 11:00 P.M., the 
appellants caused death of the deceased in furtherance of their 
common intention. The prosecution relies on the evidence of 
Govind (PW-7), who saw that appellant No. 1 was dragging 
a dead body from his house. He had also seen his mother, 
appellant No. 2, who was washing the blood stains at the door 
of their house.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
51
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
2.2	 After Beni Prasad @ Beri Prasad (PW-1) and Sumitra Bai (PW-
6), who are the father and mother of the deceased, came to 
know about the incident, they came to the spot of the incident. 
On the basis of the oral report of PW-1, an FIR (Exh. P-1) came 
to be registered at Police Station, Damoh. 
2.3	 Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came 
to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Since 
the case was exclusively triable by the learned trial Judge, it 
was committed to the learned trial Judge. 
2.4	 At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge has acquitted 
the accused persons since the prosecution has failed to prove 
the case beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent-State 
preferred an appeal before the High Court. 
2.5	 The High Court, by the impugned judgment, reversed the finding 
of the learned trial Judge, as aforesaid. 
2.6	 Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
3.	
We have heard Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel appearing on 
behalf of the appellants and Shri Pashupathi Nath Razdan, learned 
counsel for the respondent-State.
4.	
Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel, submits that the High Court 
has grossly erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of 
acquittal. He submits that the learned trial Judge by giving elaborate 
reasonings, found that the prosecution has failed to prove the 
case beyond reasonable doubt. He
submits that the High Court 
in a cursory manner interfered with the said finding. He submits 
that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and 
unless the prosecution is able to prove the chain of circumstances 
beyond reasonable doubt it is not permissible to interfere with the 
findings of the trial Judge and to record the finding of conviction. 
He further submits that, in an appeal arising from acquittal, the 
scope is limited. Unless the finding is shown to be perverse or 
impossible, it will not be permissible for the Appellate Court to 
interfere with the same.
5.	
Shri Pashupathi Nath Razdan, learned counsel for the respondent-
State, on the contrary, submits that the learned trial Judge has 
totally misread the evidence. He submits that the evidence of Beni
52
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Prasad (PW-1) and Sumitra Bai (PW-6), coupled with the medical 
evidence, would show that the prosecution has proved the case 
beyond reasonable doubt. 
6.	
Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. 
The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial 
evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court 
in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, 
wherein this Court held thus: 
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High 
Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, 
character and essential proof required in a criminal case 
which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most 
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 
SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case 
has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in 
a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, 
the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
[(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. 
State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 
656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid 
down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 
343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] : 
“It is well to remember that in cases where 
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the 
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance 
be fully established, and all the facts so 
established should be consistent only with the 
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, 
the circumstances should be of a conclusive 
nature and tendency and they should be such 
as to exclude every hypothesis but the one 
proposed to be proved. In other words, there 
must be a chain of evidence so far complete 
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a 
1	
[1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 INSC 121
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
53
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the 
accused and it must be such as to show that 
within all human probability the act must have 
been done by the accused.” 
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the 
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against 
an accused can be said to be fully established: 
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion 
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. 
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the 
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may 
be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a 
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be 
or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji 
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where 
the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC 
(Cri) p. 1047] 
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the 
accused must be and not merely may be guilty 
before a court can convict and the mental 
distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is 
long and divides vague conjectures from sure 
conclusions.” 
(2) the facts so established should be consistent 
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the 
accused, that is to say, they should not be 
explainable on any other hypothesis except that 
the accused is guilty, 
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive 
nature and tendency, 
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis 
except the one to be proved, and 
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so 
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground 
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
54
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of the accused and must show that in all human 
probability the act must have been done by the 
accused. 
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, 
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based 
on circumstantial evidence.” 
7.	
It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution 
that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be 
drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary 
principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved 
guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that 
there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may 
be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that 
the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of 
the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any 
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been 
held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every 
possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that 
there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any 
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence 
of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act 
must have been done by the accused.
8.	
It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot 
take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. An accused cannot 
be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. 
An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond 
a reasonable doubt.
9.	
Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case 
of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the 
Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal 
is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same 
would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments 
on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High 
Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are 
as reproduced below:
“13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. 
(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
55
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
“In an appeal against acquittal where the 
presumption of innocence in favour of the 
accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would 
interfere with the order of acquittal only when 
there is perversity of fact and !aw. However, 
we believe that the paramount consideration 
of the Court is to do substantial justice and 
avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise 
by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an 
offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur 
by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from 
the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, 
while enunciating the principles with regard to 
the scope of powers of the appellate Court in 
an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute 
restriction in law to review and relook the entire 
evidence on which the order of acquittal is 
founded.” 
14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of 
Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665, the Supreme Court has 
held that:- 
“No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence 
on record, two views are possible, and the 
trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the 
appellate court should not interfere with the 
same. However, this does not mean that in all 
the cases where the trial court has recorded 
acquittal, the same should not be interfered 
with, even if the view is perverse. Where the 
view taken by the trial court is against the 
weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is
always open far the appellate court to express 
the right conclusion after re-appreciating the 
evidence If the charge is proved beyond 
reasonable doubt on record, and convict the 
accused.” 
10.	 In view of the above settled principles of law, we will have to examine 
the present case.
56
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
11.	 It is not in dispute that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death 
and as such, it will not be necessary to refer to the medical evidence. 
The only question that remains is as to whether the prosecution has 
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and as to whether the 
appellants are guilty of committing the crime.
12.	 Learned trial Judge, by elaborately discussing the evidence, had 
found that the appellants were not guilty. We crystallize the findings 
of the learned trial Judge, as under:
12.1	 Beni Prasad (PW-1), who is the father of the deceased, had 
deposed that when he went to call his son Mahesh Sahu for 
dinner then Mahesh Sahu was standing at the Chowk with 
Pappu Tamrakar and two boys. Mahesh Sahu told him that he 
would come later, then Beni Prasad (PW-1) went to his house 
and fell asleep and later at night around 11:45 P.M., one boy 
came to him and told him that Ballu Chaurasiya (appellant 
No. 1), Santosh Chaurasiya and other persons were beating 
Mahesh Sahu. On hearing this, he ran towards the house of 
Ballu Chaurasiya wearing chaddhi and baniyan. He saw that 
Ballu Charuasiya, Santosh Chaurasiya and his two brothers 
were dragging Mahesh Sahu in dead condition and put his body 
10 feet away from their house. After that the accused Ballu 
Chaurasiya went inside his house. Beni Prasad (PW-1) went 
near the place where Mahesh Sahu’s body was lying and he 
found him to be dead. At that point of
time, Sumitra Bai (PW-
6), the mother of the deceased also came there and she saw 
that Jamuna Bai (appellant No. 2), who is the mother of the 
accused Ballu Chaurasiya, was cleaning the blood on the door. 
12.2	 Beni Prasad deposed that in the last month of the year 1991 
(December 1991) his son Mahesh Sahu went to Bhopal for 
an interview and there was no news about him for about eight 
months. Thereafter, a letter came to him from his son in the 
fourth month of the year 1992 (April 1992) informing him that 
he was working at Agra and that he had married a girl named 
Anita, who is the sister of the accused/appellant No. 1 Ballu 
Chaurasiya. Thereafter, the deceased Mahesh Sahu and Anita 
returned to Damoh (in the fourth month of the year 1992 i.e., 
April 1992), and Anita started living in her house and thereafter 
Anita was married to another person in Ujjain by her brother
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
57
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Ballu Chaurasiya (appellant No. 1). Thereafter, Anita left for 
her in-laws house and thereafter correspondence of letters 
started between Mahesh Sahu and Anita. He stated that this 
correspondence of letters was not liked by Ballu Chaurasiya 
(appellant No. 1) and he started to give death threats to 
Mahesh Sahu. 
12.3	 The learned trial Judge found that the statement given by Beni 
Prasad (PW-1), before the trial Judge was totally contrary to his 
statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (Exh. D/1). It was found that Beni Prasad 
(PW-1) had totally improved his story in his deposition before 
the Court. Learned trial Judge also found the behaviour of 
Beni Prasad (PW-1) to be abnormal. In his cross-examination, 
Beni Prasad (PW-1) admitted that when he saw four persons 
dragging the dead body, he said nothing because he was alone. 
However, he admitted that the dead body of Mahesh Sahu 
was lying in a dense basti and people have houses around 
the said place and there was also a dispensary of the (Nagar 
Palika) Municipality situated at Gauri Shankar Temple, about 
9 feet away from his house. Learned trial Judge also found 
that within the same dispensary itself, the Police Chowki was 
situated, manned by hawaldar and constables. The learned 
trial Judge found that the conduct of the Beni Prasad (PW-1) 
in not informing about the dead body of
the deceased being 
dragged away to anyone and particularly at the Police Chowki 
which was hardly any distance from the place of occurrence 
to be absolutely unnatural. The learned trial judge found 
that when a panchnama of the dead body (Exh. P-2) was 
being conducted, he did not give the name of the killers. The 
explanation given by Beni Prasad (PW-1) was that the police 
did not ask him. The learned trial Judge also found that Beni 
Prasad (PW-1) admitted in his evidence that at the time of 
panchnama of dead body (Exh. P-2), there was a crowd of 
around 150 people. 
12.4	 Ms. Sumitra Bai (PW-6), mother of the deceased, also stated 
about the relationship between the deceased Mahesh Sahu 
and Anita. She stated that the accused/appellant No. 1 Ballu 
Chaurasiya was threatening the deceased Mahesh Sahu on a 
day prior to the date of the incident. She also informed about
58
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
one boy coming at about 11:45 P.M./12 A.M. and informing 
her that a fight was going on between Mahesh Sahu and Ballu 
Chaurasiya. When she went to the house of the accused, 
she saw accused Ballu Chaurasiya, his elder brother, his 
manjhla brother and accused Jamuna Bai dragging her son 
and leaving her son in front of bade father’s house. Learned 
trial Judge found that the evidence of this witness was also 
totally improvised. Learned trial Judge also found that there 
was extreme exaggeration in the depositions given by this 
witness in the Court as compared to the statements under 
Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Exh. D-2). The learned trial Judge, as a 
result, disbelieved the evidence of these two witnesses, i.e., 
the father and mother of the deceased. 
12.5	 Learned trial Judge also found that the prosecution had relied 
on the evidence of Raju (PW-4), Dharmendra Singh (PW-5) 
and Govind (PW-7) to establish the circumstances regarding 
the accused being last seen with the deceased Mahesh Sahu. 
Further all these three witnesses had turned hostile and not 
supported the prosecution case. 
12.6	 Learned trial Judge also discarded the circumstances relied 
on by the prosecution regarding cutting the nails of both the 
hands of the accused Ballu Chaurasiya and the said nails 
containing the blood of the deceased Mahesh Sahu. Learned 
trial Judge also found that the nails were cut after a period of 
six days from the date of the
incident. The prosecution has also 
relied on the circumstances of recovery of the blood stained 
clothes and the knife. Learned trial Judge found that the said 
circumstances were also of no assistance in the case of the 
prosecution, inasmuch as there were no evidence to show that 
the blood found on these articles was a human blood. 
12.7	 Insofar as the circumstances with regard to the mother of the 
appellant No. 1, Jamuna Bai (appellant No. 2), are concerned, 
the learned trial Judge found that the independent witnesses 
had turned hostile, and the only evidence in that regard was 
that of S.K. Banerjee @ S.K. Banerji @ Sukant Banerjee/
Investigating Officer (PW-15). 
12.8	 Learned trial Judge found that Rajesh Kumar (PW-14), who 
was a panch witness, in his evidence, had stated that the
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
59
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
deceased was his cousin brother and he has signed the 
documents on the directions of the S.K. Banerjee/Investigating 
Officer (PW-15). As such, the learned trial Judge found that 
the circumstances with regard to the memorandum under 
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and subsequent recovery 
was also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial 
Judge further found that though from the panchnama, it was 
shown that the blood was found at various places, he had not 
made any attempt to seize the samples nor had he provided 
an explanation as to why he had not seized the samples of 
the said blood.
12.9	 Learned trial Judge found that the knife was seized on 
a memorandum of the accused (Exh. P-14) on 14th June 
1992 from an open place in the same room as mentioned in 
panchnama (Exh. P-11). Learned trial Judge also found that 
if immediately on the next day of incident, the Investigating 
Officer had visited and searched the room but he did not see 
the knife, then the subsequent recovery of knife from the very 
same room appears to be planted. 
12.10	Learned trial Judge also found that though the incident was of 
7th June 1992 at around 12:00 A.M. and it had been reported 
to the Investigating Officer at 12:40 A.M., the arrest of the 
accused persons had been made only on 15th June 1992, which 
creates a doubt on the prosecution version. This is more so 
when the distance
between the place of occurrence and the 
police station is hardly 1 to 1 ½ kms. 
13.	 The above points, that we have culled out from the judgment of 
the learned trial Judge, make it clear that the learned trial Judge 
has done a very elaborate exercise of discussing the evidence in 
great detail. We therefore would not like to burden our judgment 
with more details. The aforesaid points are more than sufficient to 
come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove any 
of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and in 
no case, the chain of circumstances, which was so interlinked to 
each other that leads to no other conclusion, than the guilt of the 
accused persons. We have no hesitation to hold that the findings 
of the learned trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of the 
material placed on record.
60
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
14.	 This elaborate exercise of the learned trial Judge, has been washed 
away by the learned Division Bench of the High Court in a totally 
cursory manner. Insofar as the testimony of Beni Prasad (PW-1) and 
Sumitra Bai (PW-6) is concerned, the Division Bench of the High 
Court observed thus:
 “8.…...After considering the entire testimony of Beni 
Prasad (PW-1) and Sumitra Bai (PW-6) we come to the 
conclusion that there are improvements and exaggerations 
in their court statement. But on this ground their whole 
testimony cannot be brushed out as the principle “Falsus 
in uno, Falsus in Omnibus” is not applicable in criminal 
trial. Sometimes, the witnesses are in fear that if their 
testimony cannot be relied upon by the Court, the main 
culprit may be acquitted. Therefore, naturally they improve 
their statement to some extent.” 
15.	 The testimony of S.K. Banerjee/Investigating Officer (PW-15), which 
has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge, giving sound reasons, 
has been believed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court, 
by placing it in paragraph 12 as under:
“12. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony 
of Investigation Officer who impartially performed his duty 
with sincerity. He had no enmity with the respondents or 
relationship with the deceased. Therefore, we are inclined 
to rely upon his testimony. It cannot be brushed aside 
simply on the basis of conjectures and surmises in
favour 
of the respondents.”
16.	 We find that the learned trial Judge had given sound and cogent 
reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO and the other witnesses. 
We are of the view that the High Court has totally erred in observing 
that the trial Judge had brushed aside the evidence of the IO simply 
on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Rather, it is the judgment 
of the High Court which is based on conjectures and surmises. 
17.	 After reproducing the aforementioned two judgments of this Court, 
discussing the settled law on the scope of an appeal against acquittal, 
the Division Bench of the High Court observed thus:
“15. As discussed above, we find that there is sufficient 
ground to reverse the impugned the judgment. Dr.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
61
Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v.  
The State of Madhya Pradesh
J.P.Parsai (PW-8) examined respondent No. 1 Ballu. He 
found some injuries on the body of respondent no. 1 which 
also indicate that before the death, the deceased struggled 
to save himself from the respondents. Dr. J.P.Parsai took 
sample of nails of both the hands of the deceased and 
sent them for FSL examination.” 
18.	 After discussing this, the High Court noted that the articles which 
were seized by S.K. Banerjee/Investigating Officer (PW-15) contained 
blood stains as per the FSL report. The High Court observed that the 
accused failed to offer any explanation with regard to the presence 
of blood on these articles. The High Court observed thus:
“18...Respondent No. 1 did not offer any explanation with 
regard to presence of blood on these articles. This is a 
strong link along with the blood marks of dragging found 
from the house of the respondent to the spot where the 
body of the deceased was lying. This establishes that the 
respondents committed murder of the deceased Mahesh 
because he had love relation with Anita. After his death, 
six love letters of Anita were found in the pocket of the 
deceased which indicates that Anita also wanted to reside 
with the deceased against the will and consent of her 
family members.” 
19.	 At the cost of repetition, we are compelled to say that the findings 
of the High Court are totally based on conjectures and surmises. 
Though
the High Court has referred to the law laid down by this 
Court with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against 
acquittal, the High Court has totally misapplied the same and a 
very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct appreciation 
of evidence by the trial Court has been reversed by the High Court, 
only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 
20.	 The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if 
it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were 
either perverse or impossible. As already discussed hereinbefore, no 
perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted 
by the learned trial Judge.
21.	 In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found 
the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have
62
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the 
learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view.
22.	 In that view of the matter, we find that the judgment passed by the 
High Court is totally unsustainable in law. 
23.	 In the result, we pass the following order:
(i)	
The appeal is allowed;
(ii)	
The impugned judgment dated 6th April 2018 passed by the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal 
No. 261 of 1995 is quashed and set aside; and
(iii)	 The accused persons (appellants herein) are acquitted of all the 
charges they were charged with. The appellants are already on 
bail. Hence, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 
24.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Result of the case: 
Appeal allowed.