REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6421 of 2006)
State of Rajasthan ....Appellant
Versus
Narayan ....Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 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 punishable 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
imprisonment respectively, fines were also imposed with default stipulation.
In appeal, acquittal was directed.
4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
The complainant, Kishore son of Mal Chand Raiger got 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 reside in the house of
Ramdeva Ram near their old house. In the morning hours his son Sushil
came to call him and 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-Chairman, Bhoora Ram also came
there. When all of them entered 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
2
throat was also cut. On this information, Case No.42/99 was registered
under Section 302/307 of IPC. When he was asked about 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 sister-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 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
circumstances were found sufficient to establish the accusations.
Accordingly, conviction was recorded and sentences imposed as 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 to taking over the investigation by PW 11. He was lying in
3
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 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 the High Court ought to have accepted that
the husband-accused 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. Generally, the order of acquittal
shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further strengthened 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 pointing 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 miscarriage of justice is prevented. A
4
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 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. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2)
Supreme 567)]. 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 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 Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant
Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore Jha v. State
of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152), State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh
(2003 (5) Supreme 508), State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7)
Supreme 17) and V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala (2006 (10) SCC 617).
5
7. The High Court had noted that there was no quarrel between the
accused and his wife. Though Kishore, brother of accused was the
informant as noted above, but he resiled from the statement during
investigation; similar was the position regarding 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 dead body. It is to be noted that the weapon was found
under the clothes of the deceased as was stated by PW10, the Investigating
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. 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.
……………………………………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……………………………………J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi,
October 17, 2008
6