REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                OF 2008   (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6421 of 2006)

State of Rajasthan   ....Appellant

Versus

Narayan  ....Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, directing acquittal of the respondent.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, in Sessions case No. 97 of 1999 had

found the respondent guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302, 316

and  309  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (in  short  the  ‘IPC’)  and  had

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life, seven years and three years

imprisonment respectively, fines were also imposed with default stipulation.

In appeal, acquittal was directed.  

4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The complainant, Kishore son of Mal Chand Raiger got registered a

First  Information  Report  (Exhibit  P-1)  in  the  Police  Station  Losal  on

22.3.1999 to the effect that his brother Narain used to reside in the house of

Ramdeva Ram near their old house.  In the morning hours his son Sushil

came to call him and told that his mother and father are inside the house and

the door is closed from the inside but none of them got up even after calling

them.  Then he saw that both of them were sleeping on a bed.  They raised

noise and the people gathered there.  Ex-Chairman, Bhoora Ram also came

there.  When all of them entered the room, they found that his sister-in-law

and his brother were lying trenched with blood.  The throat of his sister-in-

law had been cut.  She had died but his brother was breathing though his

2

throat  was  also  cut.   On this  information,  Case  No.42/99  was  registered

under  Section  302/307  of  IPC.  When  he  was  asked  about  the  delay  in

coming, he explained that it took time in calling the persons of the locality

and the relatives etc.  He also told that his sister-in-law Bhanwari Devi was

having pregnancy of  5-6  months  and  his  brother  Narain  had  come from

abroad only three months back, and that is why his brother used to enquire

from his sister-in-law about the person from whom she was having a child

in her womb and frequent quarrels used to take place on this issue.

Investigation was undertaken on the basis of the report lodged and on

completion thereof charge sheet was filed.  The accused faced trial since he

pleaded  innocence.  Trial  court  noticed  that  there  was  no  eye  witnesses’

version available and the case rested on circumstantial  evidence. But the

circumstances  were  found  sufficient  to  establish  the  accusations.

Accordingly,  conviction  was  recorded  and  sentences  imposed  as  noted

earlier.   In  appeal  before  the  High  Court  primary  stand  was  that  the

witnesses did not support the prosecution version.  PW 11 who was posted

as the officer in charge clearly accepted that the accused was admitted to the

hospital  on  5.4.1999  and  the  medical  examination  of  the  accused  was

conducted prior to taking over the investigation by PW 11.  He was lying in

3

a pool of blood and his neck was slit and he was gasping for breath.  The

High Court  accepted  the  possibility  that  there  was  suicide  pact  between

husband and wife or that the wife attacked the husband and then committed

suicide after inflicting blows on the neck of the husband who survived. In

any event it was held that the prosecution version was not established.  

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State had submitted that the High

Court had acted on surmises to infer a suicide pact, there was no evidence in

that regard and on the contrary the High Court ought to have accepted that

the husband-accused had committed murder of his wife.

6. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence

upon which an order of acquittal is based.  Generally, the order of acquittal

shall  not  be interfered with  because the presumption of innocence of the

accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs

through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two

views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the

guilt  of  the  accused  and  the  other  to  his  innocence,  the  view which  is

favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration

of  the  Court  is  to  ensure  that  miscarriage  of  justice  is  prevented.  A

4

miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less

than  from  the  conviction  of  an  innocent.  In  a  case  where  admissible

evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate

the  evidence  where  the  accused  has  been  acquitted,  for  the  purpose  of

ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence

or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2)

Supreme 567)]. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering

the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there

are  compelling  and  substantial  reasons  for  doing  so.  If  the  impugned

judgment  is  clearly  unreasonable  and  relevant  and  convincing  materials

have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason

for interference.  These  aspects  were highlighted  by this  Court  in  Shivaji

Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v.  State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973  SC 2622),

Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant

Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore Jha v. State

of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152), State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh

(2003 (5) Supreme 508),  State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7)

Supreme 17) and V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala (2006 (10) SCC 617).

5

7. The  High  Court  had  noted  that  there  was  no  quarrel  between  the

accused  and  his  wife.   Though  Kishore,  brother  of  accused  was  the

informant  as  noted  above,  but  he  resiled  from  the  statement  during

investigation;  similar  was  the  position  regarding  PW2  i.e.  father  of  the

informant  and  PW 3  the  neighbour  of  the  appellant.  The  only  evidence

which was relied upon by the trial  court  was the presence of the injured

accused near the dead body.  It is to be noted that the weapon was found

under the clothes of the deceased as was stated by PW10, the Investigating

Officer.  Therefore, the defence version that the deceased probably took her

life  after  causing  serious  injuries  on  the  neck  of  the  accused  cannot  be

described as an improbable stand.  The reasons which have weighed with

the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be characterized as perverse. That

being so, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

………….……………….……….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

                                        ……………..……….……………J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, October 17, 2008    

6