Holding

An appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only on substantial reasons; the High Court's reasoning did not meet that threshold, so the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

The appellant Krishan was convicted by a trial court for murder (IPC s.302) after allegedly delivering a lathi blow that caused the death of Chandgi Ram. The High Court acquitted him, holding that the FIR was lodged after an unreasonable delay and that the ocular evidence conflicted with the medical evidence, rendering the prosecution case unreliable. The State appealed under CrPC s.386, questioning whether such factors constitute substantial grounds to set aside an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only when there are substantial reasons, such as an unreasonable and irrelevant judgment or the unjustified exclusion of convincing material. It found that the High Court's view was a possible one and that the cumulative factors did not amount to substantial reasons for interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

Issues considered

Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 386 of the CrPC.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the variance between ocular and medical evidence constitute substantial reasons to set aside the High Court's acquittal.
Whether the cumulative effect of the factors highlighted by the High Court renders the prosecution case unreliable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 386
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderacquittalappellate reviewSection 386 CrPCevidence evaluationdelay in FIRocular evidencemedical evidencecumulative factorspresumption of innocence

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. ~Si

STATE OF HARYANA A
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 1O 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
951 H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008] 15 S.C.R

A 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
B consideration of the .·
.court
..
i.s to ensure
I .
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
0 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
F 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.
H State of UP. 2004 (11) sec 410, relied on.
STATE OFHARYANA v. KRISHAN 953

.. ' />-
Case Law Reference : A

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 8
.., . 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
-...; D
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 E
Appeal No. 374-SB-1989.

Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the Appellant.
..,I.,
Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for the Respondent.
F
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 G
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

H
i:-

954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [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.
B
2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are
as follows:

On 22.3.1989, it was PHAG festival. PW-4 Sher Singh,
)>--

..
brother of Nafe Singh (PW-3) had gone to the Bazar for playing
c 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
D 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
E 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, \
A.
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.

G 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
H
.
I
STATE OF HARYANA v. KRISHAN [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 955
>
" 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
witnesses. He also recorded the statement of Sher Singh (PW- c
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,
,'
·I Dadri, and prepared inquest report, Ex.PG, and got conducted
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
J
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.] 957

as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence A
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 B
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 D
(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. E
Therefore no interference is called for.

7. Appeal is dismissed.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.