Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHANversusNARAYAN
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1175
- Decided
- 17 October 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
An appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only on compelling and substantial reasons; the High Court’s acquittal was not perverse and therefore stands.
Summary
The State of Rajasthan charged Narayan with murdering his wife, alleging he killed her because she was pregnant by another man. Both were found with cut throats, Narayan alive, and the weapon was discovered under the wife's clothing. The trial court convicted him under IPC sections 302, 316 and 309, but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted him, accepting the possibility of a suicide pact or that the wife attacked him before killing herself. The Supreme Court held that an appellate court may review an acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons, and that the High Court’s reasoning was not perverse or unreasonable. Since the defence version was plausible and the High Court’s decision did not ignore material evidence, the acquittal was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal under criminal law
- Whether the High Court’s acquittal was based on unreasonable or perverse reasoning
- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the weapon found under the deceased, suffices to sustain a conviction
- Whether the defence theory of a suicide pact is a reasonable inference from the facts
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 309, s. 316
Subjects
acquittalappellate reviewpresumption of innocencecircumstantial evidencemurdersuicide pactcriminal procedureIPC sections 302, 316, 309
Judgment
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 699
·-+-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
v.
NARAYAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1629 of 2008)
OCTOBER 17, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
+ SHARMA, JJ.]
"
Penal Cod~, 1860 - ss. 302, 316 and 309 - Appeal
against acquittal - Power and duty of the Appellate Court - c
Allegation that accused murdered his wife - Accused found
lying in a pool of blood, gasping for breath while his wife lay
dead besides him - Throats of both accused and his wife were
found cut - Conviction by Trial Court - But acquittal by High
Court - Appeal against - Held: Presumption of innocence of
D
the accused is further strengthened by acquittal - Appellate
,-"!
Court while considering an appeal against acquittal can inter-
x fere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons
for doing so - On facts, the weapon of offence was found un-
der the clothes of deceased and therefore the -defence ver-
sion that deceased probably took her life after causing seri: E
ous injuries on the neck of accused not improbable - Rea-
sons which weighed with High Court to direct acquittal cannot
be characterized as perverse -Acquittal accordingly affirmed.
Criminal jurisprudence: F
~',
-~
Administration of justice - Held: In criminal cases, if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced, one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the
view favourable to the accused should be adopted.
G
According to the prosecution, accused-Respondent
committed the offence of murdering his wife as he sus-
pected that she was carrying a child in her womb from
some other person.
699 H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
A · Respondent was found lying in a pool of blood, gasp- +-
ing for breath while his wife lay dead besides him. The
throat of both Respondent and his wife were found cut. -
Placing reliance on the· circumstantial evidence, the
Trial Court held the Respondent guilty under ss.302, 316
8 .··and 309 of IPC and sentenced him to ·undergo life impris-
onment The High Court however accepted the possibil-
ity of a suicide pact between Respondent and his wife or +
that Respondent's wife committed suicide after inflicting
blows on the ·neck of Respondent who survived and af-
C · ter holding that the prosecution version was not estab-
lished, acquitted the Respondent. Hence the present ap-
I
peal.
-'i
Dismissing the appeal, th.e Court
I HELD:1.1. There is no embargo on the appellate
Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of
acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall
not be interfered with because the presumption of inno-
cence of the accused is further strengthened by acquit-
E tat. 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 pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to
his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
F should be adopted; The paramount consideration of the
Court is 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 inno-
ce·nt. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a
duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the
G · · evidence where the accuse·d has been acquitted, for the
purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused
really committed any offence or not. [Para 6] [704-B-E]
1.2. The principle to be followed by appellate Court
H . considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARAYAN 701
is to interfere only when there are compelling and sub- A
stantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment
is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing ma-
terials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process,
it is a compelling·reason for interference. [Para 6] [704-F-
G] B
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
+-
(2002) 2 Supreme 567; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v.
State of Maharashtra AIR (1973) SC 2622; Ramesh Babula/
Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 Supreme 167; Jaswant
Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore C
Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State
of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh (2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of
Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003) 7 Supreme 17 and
VN. Ratheesh v. State of Kera/a (2006) 10 SCC 617 - relied
on. D
2. In the present case, the High Court had noted that
there was no quarrel between the accused-Respondent
and his wife. Though the brother of accused was the in-
formant, but he resiled from the statement during investi-
gation; similar was the position regarding PW2 i.e. father E
of the informant and PW 3 the neighbour of the appellant.
The only evidence which was relied upon by the trial court
was the presence of the injured accused near the dead
body. Notably the weapon was found under the clothes
of the deceased as was stated by PW10, the lnvestigat- F
ing Officer. Therefore, the defence version that the de-
ceased probably took her life after causing serious inju-
ries on the neck of the accused cannot be described as
an improbable stand. The reasons which have weighed
with the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be charac- G
terized as perverse. [Para 7] [705-B~D]
CASE LAW REFERENCE
(2002) 2 Supreme 567 relied on Para 6
AIR (1973) SC 2622 relied on Para 6 H
,
702 SUPREME COURT 13EPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
A (1996) 4 Supreme 167 relied on Para 6
(2000) 3 Supreme 320 relied on Para 6
(2003) 7 Supreme 152 relied on Para 6
(2003) 5 Supreme 508 relied on Para 6
B (2003) 7 Supreme 17 relied on Para 6
(2006) 10 sec 617 relied on Para 6
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1629 of 2008
c From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature fqr Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in
D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 146 of 2000
Manish Kumar, Ansar Ahmed Chaudhary, Satya Prakash
D and Promila Matta for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgmentof a Division
E Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, directing
acquittal of the respondent.
·3. Learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, in Sessions case No.
97 of 1999 had found the respondent guilty of offence punish-
F able under Sections 302, 316 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short the 'IPC') and had sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life, seven years and three years imprison-
ment respectively, fines were also imposed with default stipula-
tion. In appeal, acquittal was directed.
G 4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
The complainant, Kishore son of Mal Chand Raiger.got Z.--
registered a First Information Report (Exhibit P-1) in the Police
Station Losal on 22.3.1999 to the effect that his brother Narain
used to re§ide in the house of Ramdeva Ram near their old
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARAYAN 703
house. In the morning hours his son Sushi! came to call him and A
told that his mother and father are inside the house and the door
is closed from the inside but none of them got up even after
calling them. Then he saw that both of them were sleeping on a
bed. They raised noise and the people gathered there. Ex-Chair-
man, Bhoora Ram also came there. When all of them entered s
the room, they found that his sister-in-law and his brother were
lying trenched with blood. The throat of his sister-in-law had been
cut. She had died but his brother was breathing though his throat
was also cut. On this information, Case No.42/99 was regis-
tered under Section 302/307 of IPC. When he was asked about c
the delay in coming, he explained that it took time in calling the
persons of the locality and the relatives etc. He also told that his
sister-in-law Bhanwari Devi was having pregnancy of 5-6 months
and his brother Narain had come from abroad only three months
back, and that is why his brother used to enquire from his sis-
0
ter-in-law about the person from whom she was having a child
in her womb and frequent quarrels used to take place on this
issue.
Investigation was undertaken on the basis of the report
lodged and on completion thereof charge sheet was filed. The E
accused faced trial since he pleaded innocence. Trial court
noticed that there was no eye witnesses' version available and
the case rested on circumstantial evidence. But the circum-
- stances were found sufficient to establish the accusations. Ac-
cordingly, conviction was recorded and sentences imposed as F
noted earlier. In appeal before the High Court primary stand
was that the witnesses did not support the prosecution version.
PW 11 who was posted as the officer in charge clearly accepted
that the accused was admitted to the hospital on 5.4.1999 and
the medical examination of the accused was conducted prior. G
to taking over the investigation by PW 11. He was lying in a
,,,;\, pool of blood and his neck was slit and he was gasping for
•
breath. The High Court accepted the possibility that there was
suicide pact between husband and wife or that the wife attacked
the husband and then committed suicide after inflicting blows H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
A on the neck of the husband who survived. In any event it was +
held that the prosecution version was not established.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State had submitted
that the High Court had acted on surmises to infer a suicide
pact, there was no evidence in that regard and on the contrary
8 the High Court ought to have accepted that the husoand-ac-
cused had committed murder of his wife.
6. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Gener-
C ally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because
the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strength-
ened 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 point-
D ing 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 is to ensure that mis-
carriage 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
E is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appre-
ciate 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. [See Bhagwan Singh and
Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2) Supreme 567)].
F The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the
-
appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when
there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If
the. impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant
and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in
G the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These
aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622),
Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme
167), Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme
H 320), Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Su-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARAYAN 705
-f preme 152), State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh (2003 (5) Su- A
preme 508), State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7)
Supreme 17) and VN. Ratheesh v. State of Kera/a (2006 (10)
sec 617).
7. The High Court had noted that there was no quarrel be-
tween the accused and his wife. Though Kishore, brother of 8
... accused was the informant as noted above, but he resiled from
the statement during investigation; similar was the position re-
garding PW2 i.e. father of the informant and PW 3 the neighbour
of the appellant. The only evidence which was relied upon by
the trial court was the presence of the injured accused near the C
dead body. It is to be noted that the weapon was found under
the clothes of the deceased as was stated by PW10, the Inves-
tigating Officer. Therefore, the defence version that the deceased
probably took her life after causing serious injuries on the neck
of the accused cannot be described as an improbable stand. D
..J The reasons which have weighed with the High Court to direct
~ acquittal cannot be characterized as perverse. That being so,
there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "acquittal"Sign in to search