GHUREY LAL v. STATE OF U.P

turb the order of acquittal passed by trial court only if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling rea- sons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substan- tial and compelling reasons" exist when: i) the trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii) the trial court's decision was based on an errone- E F ~ -<( ous view of law; iii) the trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; iv) the entire approach of the trial court in dealing G with the evidence was patently illegal; --...,, v) the trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) the trial court has ignored the evidence or mis- H 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A read the material evidence or has ignored material docu ments like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic Ex pert, etc.

This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. B (b) The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. y~ (c) If two rl?!asonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. [para 73] [539-B,C,D,E,F,G, 540-A,B] C 0 Surajpal Singh& Others v. State AIR 1952 SC 52; Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 637; Alley v. State of UP. AIR 1955 SC 807; Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216; M. G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra A!R 1963 SC 200; Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC 228; B.N. Mutto & Another v. Dr. T K. Nandi (1979) 1 SCC 361; Tota Singh & Another v. E State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529; Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 248; Sambasivan & Others v.

State of Kera/a (1998) 5 SCC 412; Bhagwan Singh & Others v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85; Harijana Thirupala & Oth ers v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad (2002) 6 SCC 470; C. Antony v. K. G Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC F 1; State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalkrishna (2005) 9 SCC 291; The State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755; Staie of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 - relied on. r I Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 Privy Council G 227; Tulsiram Kanu v. The State AIR 1954 SC 1; Noor Khan v. State o,t Rajasthan AIR 1964 SC 286; Khedu Mohton & Oth ers v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Another v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793; . Lekha Yadav v. State of Bihar (1973) 2 SCC 424; Khem Karan H & Others v. State ofU.P &Another AIR 1974SC1567; Bishan 1-' --t Iii-)' ... _.. .. _.... .. ..,. GHUREY LAL v. STATE OF U.P. 505;