Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
Nepal Singh
Versus
State of Haryana
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.383 OF 2002
Decided on : 24-04-2009
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Settled principle of law noticed. (Para 35)
(1934) 61 IA 398; AIR 1945 PC 151; AIR 1954 SC 36; 1952 SCR 193; 1953 SCR 418; AIR 1955 SC 807; (1995) 2 SCR 1285; (1963) 2 SCR 405; (1973) 2 SCC 793; (1979) 1 SCC 355; (1996) 9 SCC 225; (2002) 3 SCC 57; (2002) 4 SCC 85; (2002) 6 SCC 470; (2003) 12 SCC 606; (2006) 10 SCC 313; (2001) 4 SCC 415 - Relied upon.
Criminal Law - Probability - There is an subjective element in evaluation of degrees of probability and quantum of proof - Forensic probability must, in last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on trained intuitions of Judge - While protection given by criminal process to accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. (Para 38)
(1998) 4 SCC 302; (2003) 7 SCC 56 - Relied upon.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the broad power of the High Court to review and reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, including questions of fact and law. (!) - It outlines that there is a double presumption in favor of the accused on acquittal and prescribes that appellate courts must consider credibility, the innocence presumption, and not disturb the trial court’s findings without substantial and compelling reasons; two reasonable conclusions on evidence should lead to maintaining acquittal. (!) (!) (!) - It cites Privy Council and Indian jurisprudence establishing that an appellate court may reverse an acquittal if the evidence warrants reappraisal and that there is no strict limitation on such power, though safeguards and proper reasoning must be applied. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The case emphasizes that in dowry-related cases (304-B, 498-A IPC), the High Court may intervene if the trial court’s acquittal is not supported by evidence and if the appellate court finds substantial grounds to differ. (!) (!) - The High Court’s earlier acquittal was set aside by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, resulting in conviction. (!) (!) - The judgment critiques the High Court’s reasoning that "something must have happened" to explain suicide, clarifying that such reasoning is indefensible as a basis to set aside acquittal. (!)
Judgment :
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine with default stipulation for the first offence. But no separate sentence was awarded in respect of the later offence. The appellant faced trial before learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and was acquitted by learned Sessions Judge giving him the benefit of doubt. The State Government preferred an appeal which was allowed by the High Court.
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
The marriage of Manju (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased) was solemnised with appellant-Nepal Singh on 26.1.1989. Though Yudhishter Singh (PW5) the father of the deceased had spent sufficient money for the marriage, accused Nepal Singh was not satisfied with the dowry. He demanded a gas connection which deceased conveyed to her mother Lajwant (PW6) on which her father (PW5) got the gas connection and gave it to Manju.
On 16.5.1991, deceased had come to Bapora (village of her father) to attend the marriage of the daughter of Shyam Pal Singh (brother of her father). Deceased told her father (PW5) and mother (PW6) that accused had completed his course and wanted her to bring Rs. One lakh from them and that if she failed to do so, accused would turn her out of the house. Yudhishter Singh (PW5) told her that he would arrange for the money.
On 23.5.1991 deceased left for Kanti (village of her in-laws) accompanied by Sunil Kumar (PW7), her brother. While going, deceased told her father to arrange for the money otherwise her in laws would not allow her to live.
Since Yudhishter Singh (PW5) could not arrange money, Manju had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. On receiving information on 26.5.1991, Yudhishter Singh (PW5) alongwith Sarpanch-Mitter Pal and Head Constable Rohtas Singh (PW3) met SI-Ramji Lal (PW8) at the bus stand of Ateli and Yudhishter Singh (PW5) made the above said statement which formed the basis for registering the formal FIR. Investigation was undertaken.
After investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. The prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of Yudhishter Singh (PW5) father of the deceased and Lajwant (PW6) mother of the deceased and Sunil Kumar (PW7) brother of the deceased. The trial court found that this was a case of suicide and little physical contact between the accused and the deceased was the primary reason. It was noted that the accused was pursuing studies till 13th May, 1991, and thereafter he returned home. Finding the prosecution version to be suspect, the trial court directed acquittal. As noted above State preferred an appeal. It was the primary stand that some thing must have happened otherwise the victim would not have committed suicide and the fact that the accused and the deceased could not have any sexual relationship was an additional ground for suicide. The High Court found that the evidence of Sunil Kumar (PW7) the brother of the deceased conclusively established the accusations and accordingly set aside the order of acquittal and recorded conviction.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has not even discussed the conclusions of the trial court in the proper perspective and even no reason was indicated as to why the High Court differed with the view of the trial court. The allegation of dowry demand was not stated during investigation and lot of
improvements were made in court for the first time. It is in essence submitted that considering the limited scope for interference with the judgment of acquittal, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of the trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
