2010 Supreme(SC) 723

2010 (6) Supreme 777
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Babu — Appellant
versus
State of Kerala — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2009
Decided on : 11-8-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In the case of circumstantial evidence the burden on prosecution is always greater.
2. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved. The statutory provision even for a presumption of guilt of the accused under a particular statute must meet the tests of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 302 –Prosecution of appellant for murdering his wife, by giving her Sodium Cyanide-Acquittal by Trial Court-Appeal-Allowed by High Court-Appeal- The well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court had been reversed by High Court without giving proper reasoning and without realising that it was a case of circumstantial evidence-No motive was attributed to appellant except that (PW.10) had deposed that appellant was not satisfied with the sexual behaviour of deceased- While the High Court was satisfied with this alleged motive, it failed to notice the glaring contradiction that surrounded it- On the one hand, prosecution’s case alleged that motive behind appellant’s murder of his deceased wife was that she was refusing to have sexual relations with him- On the other hand, prosecution’s case was that deceased, was taking an ayurvedic contraceptive at the behest of the appellant- No explanation had been provided for why the deceased, would have taken a contraceptive if she was not having sexual relations with her husband or anyone else- In view of such material contradictions in the case of the prosecution, held that the prosecution had been unable to establish a motive in the instant case- In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive must be established at least to certain extent-Had there been a motive on the part of the appellant to get rid of deceased and he had purchased the Sodium Cyanide on 26th/27th May, 2000, from (PW.7), it was difficult to believe that he was waiting upto 1.6.2000 and that he would have advised his wife to take the Cyanide under the guise of an Ayurvedic contraceptive medicine at the residence of her parents- Trial Court had doubts regarding the veracity of depositions of (PW.4), (PW.5), and (PW.7),they being friends of (PW.10)- Trial Court, in fact, had an advantage to watch the demeanour of the witness and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility- Hence High court ought not to have reversed judgment of Trial Court- In fact, High Court had erred in emphasising that onus to prove his innocence was on the appellant- In fact the prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.- In the case of circumstantial evidence the burden on prosecution is always greater-Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside and that of Trial Court restored- Appeal allowed. (Paras 34 to 37)

        Appeal against Acquittal-The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be more, probable one- While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable- The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law-Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Para 7)

        Appeal against Acquittal -In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal- The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence- Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Para 15)

        Burden of Proof and Doctrine of Innocence- Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved- The presumption of innocence is a human right-However, subject to the statutory exceptions, said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence- For this purpose, the nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity thereof has to be taken into consideration- The courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption, the same may not lead to any injustice or mistaken conviction.-Certain Statutes provide for presumption of guilt if the circumstances provided in those Statutes are found to be fulfilled and shift the burden of proof of innocence on the accused-However, such a presumption can also be raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution- There may be difficulty in proving a negative fact- However, in cases where the statute does not provide for the burden of proof on the accused, it always lies on the prosecution- It is only in exceptional circumstances, that the burden on proof is on the accused- The statutory provision even for a presumption of guilt of accused under a particular statute must meet the tests of reasonableness and liberty enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution. (Para 24)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant herein in the instant case was prosecuted for murdering his wife, by giving her Sodium Cyanide. Trial Court acquitted appellant .On Appeal, High Court reversed judgement of Trial Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        The well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court had been reversed by High Court without giving proper reasoning and without realising that it was a case of circumstantial evidence.No motive was attributed to appellant except that (PW.10) had deposed that appellant was not satisfied with the sexual behaviour of deceased. While the High Court was satisfied with this alleged motive, it failed to notice the glaring contradiction that surrounded it. On the one hand, prosecution’s case alleged that motive behind appellant’s murder of his deceased wife was that she was refusing to have sexual relations with him. On the other hand, prosecution’s case was that deceased, was taking an ayurvedic contraceptive at the behest of the appellant. No explanation had been provided for why the deceased, would have taken a contraceptive if she was not having sexual relations with her husband or anyone else. In view of such material contradictions in the case of the prosecution, it was held that the prosecution had been unable to establish a motive in the instant case. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive must be established at least to certain extent. Had there been a motive on the part of the appellant to get rid of deceased and he had purchased the Sodium Cyanide on 26th/27th May, 2000, from (PW.7), it was difficult to believe that he was waiting upto 1.6.2000 and that he would have advised his wife to take the Cyanide under the guise of an Ayurvedic contraceptive medicine at the residence of her parents. Trial Court had doubts regarding the veracity of depositions of (PW.4), (PW.5), and (PW.7),they being friends of (PW.10). Trial Court, in fact, had an advantage to watch the demeanour of the witness and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility. Hence High court ought not to have reversed judgment of Trial Court. In fact, High Court had erred in emphasising that onus to prove his innocence was on the appellant. In fact the prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.. In the case of circumstantial evidence the burden on prosecution is always greater.Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside and that of Trial Court restored. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.