[2008] 15 S.C.R. ~Si ST ATE OF HARYANA II. KRIS HAN (Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2003) NOVEMBER 7, 2008 ·s [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K.THAKKER, JJ.) Penal Code 1860- s. 302 – Conviction under – Acquittal
by High Court – On the ground that ii/aqua Magistrate, c received FIR after a Jong delay; and ocular evidence at variance with medial evidence – Interference with – Held: Not . called for – Cumulative effect of factors highlighted by High Court made prosecution case unreliable – Evidence.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – Appeal D against acquittal – Interference with – Scope of – Explained. According the prosecution case, the appellant caused lathi blow on the head of the deceased resulting .
in his death. Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 302 E IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for 1 O years. High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the ground that illaqua Magistrate received
FIR after a long delay; and that the ocular evidence was at variance with medical evidence. Hence the present F appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is no embargo on the appellate
court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of G acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strength~ned by
acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced· in the case, one p_ointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence; the view which is favourable to the ·
accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the .court i.s to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible
: evidence ·.is ignored, .a duty is cast upon the appellate c court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence
or not. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly
·unreasonable and irrelevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a substantial reason for interference. [Para 5] [956-E-~; E 957-A, B] .
1.2 Though some of the factors highlighted by. the High Court may not create a dent in the prosecution . version but the cumulative effect certainly casts a shadow upon the credibility of the prosecution version. The view
taken is a possible view. Therefore, no interference is called for. [Para 6] [957-E] Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. 2003 (3) SCC 21; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC
793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi· v. State of Gujarat 1996 (9) G SCC 225; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana 2000 (4) SCC 484; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003 (11) SCC 519; State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh 2003 (11) SCC 271; State
of Punjab v. Pho/a Singh 2003 (11) SCC 58; Suchand Pal v, Phani Pal 2003 (11) SCC 527; Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of UP. 2004 (11) sec 410, relied on. STATE OFHARYANA v. KRISHAN
.. ' Case Law Reference : 2003 (3) sec 21 Rel.ied on. Para 5 1973 (2) sec 793 Relied on. Para 5 1996 (9) sec 22s Relied on. Para 5 .., . 2000 (4) sec 484 Relied on. Para 5 _. 2003 (11) sec 519
Relied on. Para 5 2003 (11) sec 21t Relied on. Para 5 'c 2003 (11) sec 58 Relied on. Para 5 2003 (11) sec 527 Relied on. Para 5 2004 (11) sec 410 Relied on. Para 5 -…; CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 915 of 2003. From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.1.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 374-SB-1989. Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the Appellant.
..,I., Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent deserves to be acquitted and the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani is not correct. It is to be noted that learned Sessions Judge had found i:
[2008] 15 S:C.R. -I;, 'f A the respondent guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 …. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and was sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and.fine with default stipulation. However the two co"".accused persons Jai Bhagwan and Anant Ram were acquitted.
2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows: )>– .. On 22.3.1989, it was PHAG festival. PW-4 Sher Singh, c brother of Nafe Singh (PW-3) had gone to the Bazar for playing PHAG. However, Nafe Singh (PW-3) and his father Chandgi
t Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') remained at the house. t– l Naresh Kumar, nephew of Nafe Singh, visited them at about 3 pm and informed that Sher Singh (PW 4) had been
)._ ~I beaten by carpenters of their village. On receipt of this information, PW-3 Nafe Singh alongwith his father Chandgi Ram went towards the houses of carpenters. His father was · ahead of him, while he was following him. When they reached near the shop ofJai Singh, then he started talking with Jai Singh while Chandgi Ram went ahead. Chandgi enquired from the·
carpent~rs about the whereabouts of Sher Singh, PW-4,·upon t which carpenters lost temper. Anant Ram and Jai Bhagwan, accused (now acquitted) caught hold of Chandgi Ram from his F arms while Krishan, appellant, inflicted a Lathi blow, on the head of Chandgi Ram. On. receipt of the Lathi blow, he fell down and the appellant alongwith co-accused ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by Nafe Singh and Jai Singh.
In the meantime, Harish also appeared. Chandgi was put into a tempo and was taken to civil hospital, Dadri, where he was admitted and was medico-legally examined. The police ..{_ reached the hospital. Nafe Singh made statement, Ex.PL, to lnder Singh Saini, Sub Inspector (PW-5) which was signed after STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
admitting the same to be correct. lnder Singh Saini (PW-5) A made endorsement Ex.PU1 and sent it to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex.PU 2 was recorded by Dalip Singh, Sub Inspector.
lnder Singh Saini SI (PW-5), then went to the place of B occurrence but none was found there and he stayed in the village. On the next day i.e. on 23.3.1989, he called Chowkidar and Jai Singh also came there and on the pointing out of Jai Singh, he took blood stained earth from the spot after making it into a sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PM attested by the c
witnesses. He also recorded the statement of Sher Singh (PW- 4) who had come there and sent him for his medico-legal examination to Civil Hospital Dadri. At about 8 a.m., he received Ruqa through constable Ram
Pal, informing him about the death of Chandgi and then he D __, converted the offence into 302 IPC. He went to Civil Hospital, Dadri, and prepared inquest report, Ex.PG, and got conducted ·I
postmortem on the dead body of Chandgi. Head constable Parkash Chand handed over one packet to him, which he took into possession vide Memo Ex.PM. He recorded the statements E of the witnesses. He apprehended the appellant and his two companions on 27.3.1989. He interrogated the appellant and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Ex.PQ, recovered Lathi, Ex.P3, which was made into a sealed parcel and was
taken into possession. Before taking into possession, he F prepared rough sketch of the Lathi, Ex.PS and also a site plan of the place of recovery, Ex. PT. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was
held. Prosecution examined six witnesses. One Jai Singh was given up as he was supposed to won over. The trial court placed G reliance on the evidence of PW 3 and directed conviction as r.
recorded above. In appeal the High Court found that there were several factors which made the prosecution version unreliable. It was H STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN [DR ARIJITPASAYAT, J.]
as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P, 2003 (3) SCC 21). The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are substantial reasons for doing so. \f the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and irrelevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a substantial reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793), Ramesh
Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (9) SCC 225), Jaswant c Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 (4) SCC 484), Raj Kishore <Jha v. State of Bihar (2003 ( 11) SCC 519), State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh (2003 (1'1) SCC 271), State of Punjab v. Pho/a Singh (2003 (11) SCC ·58), Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal (2003
( 11) SCC 527) and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2004 (11) sec 410). 6. Though some of the factors highlighted by the High Court may not create a dent in the prosecution version but the cumulative effect certainly casts a shadow upon the credibility of the prosecution version. The view taken is a possible view. Therefore no interference is called for.
7. Appeal is dismissed. N.J. Appeal dismissed.