1. Fatal attack — Charges under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, and 506, IPC — Trial Court acquittal — Appeal against acquittal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 164
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, B.V.NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Roopwanti - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1904 of 2014
Decided on : 24-02-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Mrs. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Komal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mahima Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Mrs. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Komal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mahima Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Additional layer of protection is granted to accused in cases where accused already enjoys acquittal.
Additional layer of protection is granted to accused in cases where accused already enjoys acquittal.
Subject
Criminal Law - ACQUITTAL
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 506 – Murder, attempt to murder, hurt and criminal intimidation – Common object – Appeal against acquittal – In cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, courts must keep in mind that presumption of innocence in favour of accused, on grounds of it surviving rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified – Prosecution then, while still working under same burden of proof, is required to discharge a more onerous responsibility to annul and reverse fortified presumption of innocence – Presence of Appellant on spot of crime was also not proved – As per Forensic Science Laboratory Report, no blood was present on weapons recovered except for traces of blood on one lathi, and even that could not be linked with blood of deceased – Mother of deceased gave a completely different narration of events – Additional layer of protection is granted to accused in cases where accused already enjoys acquittal – No perversity committed by Trial Court while reaching its conclusion – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 43/MA/2012 where the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Findings of Court:
We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Trial Court as well as the High Court. As a consequence, the appeal stands dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to acquittal — Contention that the Trial Court and High Court erred in appreciating evidence and facts. (Para 5 )
3. Trial Court findings on unreliable eyewitness testimony, contradictory evidence from interested witnesses, and inconclusive forensic reports on recovered weapons. (Para 6 , 11 )
4. Reversal of acquittal requires the trial court's view to be perverse or unreasonable; if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Acquittal upheld. (Para 12 )
6. What is the legal standard for reversing a judgment of acquittal in an appellate court?
Reversal is permissible only if the trial court's view is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse. Interference requires compelling and substantial reasons, such as the trial court ignoring material evidence or misreading evidence. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. How is the presumption of innocence affected after a trial court acquits the accused?
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is reinforced and fortified after surviving the rigours of a full trial, requiring the prosecution to discharge a more onerous responsibility to reverse the acquittal. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Which view should be adopted when evidence in an acquittal appeal supports two different conclusions?
If two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence—the view favorable to the accused must be adopted. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 43/MA/2012 where the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
FACTS
2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present appeal are that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 herein, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the deceased on 22.12.2009. The deceased was then taken to a hospital where he later died the next day on 23.12.2009.
3. An FIR of the alleged incident was lodged on 22.12.2009 at Police Station Karnal City, registered as FIR No. 905 against the respondents herein under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 506 of the IPC, and the police began the investigation.
4. On completion of the investigation, a final report was presented in court, and the case was committed to the competent court for trial. The respondents were charge sheeted vide order dated 17.05.2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and sought for a full trial. After the appraisal of evidence, the trial judge found the case of the prosecution to be doubtful which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of all the respondent accused vide order dated 18.10.2011.
5. The Appellant herein aggrieved by the above-mentioned order of the Trial Court filed a criminal appeal. The High Court vide impugned order dated 24.01.2013 dismissed the appeal on grounds that judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts and there was no error. Aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
ANALYSIS
6. In its reasoning for acquitting the respondents herein, the Trial Court in its findings held that none of the eyewitnesses were able to support the case of the prosecution. The court noted that Appellant, who is the mother of the deceased gave a completely different narration of events as compared to PW1. The Trial Judge also noted that the presence of the Appellant on the spot of the crime was also not proved, and that because she was mother of the deceased, hence, an interested witness and her evidence was not reliable. It was also observed that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, no blood was present on the weapons recovered except for traces of blood on one lathi, and even that could not be linked with the blood of the deceased.
7. In cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the courts must keep in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified. The prosecution then, while still working under the same burden of proof, is required to discharge a more onerous responsibility to annul and reverse the fortified presumption of innocence. This fortification of the presumption of innocence has been held in a catena of judgments by this court.
8. In the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 748, this Court has held that in cases of reversal of acquittal, where two views are possible, the view which favors the accused has to be adopted. For the sake of Convenience, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is being produced hereunder:
“The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointi
