2021 Supreme(SC) 243

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
ACHHAR SINGH - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1140-1141 OF 2010
WITH
BUDHI SINGH - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1144 of 2010
Decided on : 07-05-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is no bar on High Court’s power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal. Cr.P.C. does not differentiate in power, scope, jurisdiction or limitation between appeals against judgments of conviction or acquittal.
(2) No exaggerated statement is possible without an element of truth – There is a marked differentia between an ‘exaggerated version’ and a ‘false version’.
(3) It is not necessary for prosecution to examine every cited or possible witness. So long as prosecution case can withstand test of proof beyond doubt, non-examination of all or every witness is immaterial.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – It is fundamental in criminal jurisprudence that every person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, for criminal accusations can be hurled at anyone without him being a criminal – Suspect is considered to be innocent in interregnum between accusation and judgment – It is obligatory on prosecution to establish guilt of accused save where presumption of innocence has been statutorily dispensed with – Presumption of innocence, until accused is proved to be guilty, is an integral part of Indian criminal justice system – This presumption of innocence is doubled when a competent Court analyses material evidence, examines witnesses and acquits accused – If two views are possible, High Court ought not to interfere with trial Court’s judgment – However, such a precautionary principle cannot be overstretched to portray that contours of appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. are limited to seeing whether or not trial Court’s view was impossible – There is no bar on High Court’s power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal – Cr.P.C. does not differentiate in power, scope, jurisdiction or limitation between appeals against judgments of conviction or acquittal – Appellate Court is free to consider on both fact and law, despite self-restraint that has been ingrained into practice while dealing with orders of acquittal where there is a double presumption of innocence of accused., (Paras 13, 14 and 15)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Genesis of an ‘exaggerated statement’ lies in a true fact, to which fictitious additions are made so as to make it more penetrative – Every exaggeration has ingredients of ‘truth’ – No exaggerated statement is possible without an element of truth – There is a marked differentia between an ‘exaggerated version’ and a ‘false version’ – An exaggerated statement contains both truth and falsity, whereas a false statement has no grain of truth in it – Court of law, being mindful of such distinction is duty bound to disseminate ‘truth’ from ‘falsehood’ and sift grain from chaff in case of exaggerations – It is only in a case where grain and chaff are so inextricably intertwined that in their separation no real evidence survives, that whole evidence can be discarded – Homicidal deaths cannot be left to judicium dei – Court in their quest to reach truth ought to make earnest efforts to extract gold out of heap of black sand – Solemn duty is to dig out authenticity – It is only when Court, despite its best efforts, fails to reach a firm conclusion that benefit of doubt is extended. (Paras 24 and 26)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 452, 326 and 323 – House trespass and hurt – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Even if exaggerations of multiple axe blows being given to deceased were discarded, allegation that accused entered house of victims armed with an axe and hit deceased on her head and that deceased died due to a head injury was consistent and undisputed throughout FIR and deposition by prosecution witnesses – Same is also supported by post-mortem report – Trial Court’s confusion as to who caused deceased’s fatal injury was unwarranted and uncalled for – Trial Court apparently fell in grave error and overlooked credible and consistent evidence while proceeding with a baseless premise that exaggerated statements made by eye-witnesses belie their version – presence of random blood marks elsewhere could not put in doubt fact that incident happened in house of complainant from where same witness recovered sticks, bloodstained stone, glass splinters, pieces of wood and leftover food, etc. – Fact that ASI did not find it necessary or even material to investigate blood marks shows that they had no legal impact on investigative conclusions – Non-examination of many alleged bystanders is well explained – It is not necessary for prosecution to examine every cited or possible witness – So long as prosecution case can withstand test of proof beyond doubt, non-examination of all or every witness is immaterial – High Court was merited to interfere with perverse findings of trial Court and has prevented miscarriage of justice by separating grain from husks leading to conviction of appellants – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 21, 22, 27, 31, 32, 37 and 38)

Facts of the case:

Appellants are aggrieved by judgment and order dated 12.05.2010/27.05.2010 passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby their acquittal by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi dated 24.02.1998 has been set aside. Consequently, appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 452, 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine, while c-appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine.

Findings of Court:

Trial Court in the instant case rightly observed that evidence was chaotic with regard to many accused persons and no definite view could be formed regarding their participation. High Court also shared the view of the trial Court and expressed concern regarding the exaggerations and contradictions within the evidence. Keeping in mind the attempts by the prosecution witnesses to implicate numerous people, the High Court delineated the strands of consistent evidence against some of the accused which were overlooked by the trial Court amid the chaos.

Result : Appeals dismissed.