2007 Supreme(SC) 1448

2007(7) Supreme 606
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Atar Singh and Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 54 OF 2001
Decided on : 12-11-2007

Important Point
When prosecution comes with a definite case that offence has been committed by accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on person of accused.
Principle to be followed by appellate Court considering appeal against 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

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 302 r\w 149,323,324, 452, 147,148 – Prosecution of accused respondents for causing death of deceased and injuries to three others by assaulting them with spears and lathis - Conviction by Trial Judge relying on evidence of injured witnesses – Acquittal by High Court - Appeal against acquittal - Non-explanation of injuries by prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by accused are minor and superficial or where evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs effect of omission on the part of prosecution to explain injuries - It is not an invariable rule that prosecution has to explain injuries sustained by accused in same occurrence - If witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are believed by Court in proof of guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by accused does not arise - When prosecution comes with a definite case that offence has been committed by accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on person of accused - It is more so when injuries are simple or superficial in nature - Instantly trifle and superficial injuries on accused were of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case - Considering the cumulative effect of circumstances which have weighed with High Court to direct acquittal, it could not be said that view taken by High Court was not a plausible view – No interference called with order of acquittal - Appeal dismissed.(Paras 9,10)

       2003 8 Supreme 476, AIR 1972 SC 2593, AIR 1988 SC 863 relied upon.

       Appeal against acquittal - There is no embargo on appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based - Generally, order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened by acquittal - Golden thread which runs through web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on evidence adduced in case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted - The paramount consideration of Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented - A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of guilty is no less than from conviction of an innocent - In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon appellate Court to re-appreciate evidence where accused has been acquitted, for purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of accused really committed any offence or not - Principle to be followed by appellate Court considering appeal against 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.(Para 8)

       2002 (2) Supreme 567, AIR 1973 SC 2622, 1996 (4) Supreme 167, 2000 (3) Supreme 320, 2003 (7) Supreme 152, 2003 (5) Supreme 508, 2003 (7) Supreme 17).

       2006(10) SCC 617 Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

       Accused respondents were prosecuted herein in instant case for causing death of deceased and injuries to three others by assaulting them with spears and lathis. Trial Judge convicted accused respondent relying on evidence of injured witnesses. High Court acquitted accused respondents.

       Present appeal has been filed against said order of acquittal.

       Findings of the court :

       The Court held that non-explanation of injuries by prosecution will not affect prosecution case where injuries sustained by accused are minor and superficial or where evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it outweighs effect of omission on the part of prosecution to explain injuries. It is not an invariable rule that prosecution has to explain injuries sustained by accused in same occurrence. If witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are believed by Court in proof of guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, question of obligation of prosecution to explain injuries sustained by accused does not arise. When prosecution comes with a definite case that offence has been committed by accused and proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it becomes hardly necessary for prosecution to again explain how and under what circumstances injuries have been inflicted on person of accused. It is more so when injuries are simple or superficial in nature. Instantly trifle and superficial injuries on accused were of little assistance to them to throw doubt on veracity of prosecution case. Considering the cumulative effect of circumstances which had weighed with High Court to direct acquittal, it could not be said that view taken by High Court was not a plausible view. No interference was called with order of acquittal. Appeal was dismissed accordingly.