2020 Supreme(SC) 559

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Anwar Ali and another – Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1121 of 2016
Decided on : 25-09-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though view of appellate court may be the more probable one.
(2) Absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused.
(3) In a case where recovery is seriously doubted, non-compliance of procedure as required to be followed under Sections 100(4) and 166 (3 & 4), Cr.P.C. play an important role.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though view of appellate court may be the more probable one – While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, appellate court has to consider entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable – Appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law – Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by appellate court – Appellate court should bear in mind presumption of innocence of accused and that trial court’s acquittal bolsters presumption of his innocence – Interference in a routine manner where other view is possible should be avoided unless there are good reasons for interference – If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse – But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, conclusions would not be treated as perverse and findings would not be interfered with. (Paras 5.2.1 and 5.2.3)

(B) Criminal Law – Motive – Evidentiary value – Absence of proving motive cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case – If motive is proved that would supply a link in chain of circumstantial evidence but absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case – However, absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused. (Para 9)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 392, 201 and 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 100 (4) and 166(3 & 4) read with Section 378 – Murder, robbery, screening of evidence and cheating – Common intention – Circumstantial evidence – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – In case of a circumstantial evidence, circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability crime was committed by accused and none else and circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with guilt of accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence – On appreciation of entire evidence on record, trial Court found material contradictions in deposition of witnesses of disclosure statements and recovery of knife and rope and thereby did not believe recovery of knife, rope, crates on the basis of disclosure statements made by accused – However, High Court without giving any cogent reasons has interfered with findings of fact recorded by trial Court solely by observing that those contradictions were minor contradictions – Contradictions which came to be considered by trial Court cannot be said to be minor contradictions – Prosecution and IO suppressed material facts – Investigating Officer did not follow procedure as required to be followed under Section 166 (3 & 4), Cr.P.C. – Even he did not comply with provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. – Non-following of these provisions alone may not be a ground to acquit accused – However, considering overall surrounding circumstances and in a case where recovery is seriously doubted, non-compliance of aforesaid play an important role – So-called disclosure statement found to be suspicious and doubtful – Cogent reasons have been given by trial Court for the same – Trial Court was justified in recording acquittal by observing that prosecution has failed to complete entire chain of events – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside and judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge restored. (Paras 5.4, 6.1, 7, 8, 10 and 11)

Facts of the case:

Appellants – original accused have preferred present appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2012, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent – The State of Himachal Pradesh and has reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court and consequently has convicted appellants – original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 34, 392, 201 and 420, IPC and has sentenced the appellants herein – original accused to undergo life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34, IPC.

Findings of Court:

Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure as required to be followed under Section 166 (3 & 4), Cr.P.C. Even he did not comply with the provisions of Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. Non-following of these provisions alone may not be a ground to acquit the accused. However, considering the overall surrounding circumstances and in a case where recovery is seriously doubted, non-compliance of the aforesaid play an important role.

Result : Appeal allowed.