ACHHAR SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 07-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 243
ACHHAR SINGH
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1140 –1141 of 2010)
MAY 07, 2021
[N.V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal in case
of acquittal – Exercise of power by the High Court under – On
facts, the High Court convicted two accused-appellants for offences
u/s. 452, 326 and 323 and u/ss. 302 and 452 IPC, respectively,
setting aside the acquittal by the trial court – Interference with –
Held: High Court rightly interfered with the perverse findings of
the trial court and prevented miscarriage of justice by convicting
the appellants – High Court went through the consistent evidence
against some of the accused which were overlooked by the trial
court amid the chaos in evidence, and on basis of the evidence,
convicted one accused u/s. 302 IPC and other u/ss. 326 and 323
IPC – Trial court erred in overlooking the credible and consistent
evidence while proceeding with a baseless premise that the
exaggerated statements made by the eye-witnesses belie their version
– Trial court due to many contradictions failed to identify and
appreciate material admissible evidence against the accused – Thus,
the finding of the trial court in ignorance of the relevant material
on record was perverse and called for interference from the High
Court – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 323, 326, 452 – Evidence –
Eye witnesses.
Criminal jurisprudence: Cardinal rule – Held: Every person
is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty – It is obligatory on
the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused save where the
presumption of innocence has been statutorily dispensed with – This
presumption of innocence is doubled when a competent Court
analyses the material evidence, examines witnesses and acquits the
accused – When two reasonable and possible views arise, the one
favourable to the accused is adopted – In such cases, interference
is not thrusted unless perversity is detected in the decision-making
243
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
process – However, it cannot be interpreted that the “contours of
appeal” against acquittal u/s 378 CrPC are limited to seeing whether
or not the trial court’s view was impossible – There is no bar on the
High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against
acquittal.
Criminal trial: Appreciation of evidence – Held: Homicidal
deaths cannot be left to the judgment of god-judicium dei – Court in
their quest to reach the truth ought to make earnest efforts to extract
the credibility – When the Court, despite its best efforts, fails to
reach a firm conclusion, it extends the benefit of doubt.
Evidence: Admissibility of – When witnesses tend to exaggerate
– Held: In case of exaggerations, the court being mindful of
distinction between truth and falsity, is duty bound to disseminate
‘truth’ from ‘falsehood’ – Evidence given by a witness cannot be
discarded as a whole on the ground that it is exaggerated – It is
only in a case where evidence are so inextricably intertwined that
in their separation no real evidence survives, that the whole evidence
can be discarded.
Words and phrases: Expression ‘exaggeration’ – Meaning of.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court was merited to interfere with
the perverse findings of the trial court and has prevented
miscarriage of justice by separating grain from the husks leading
to the conviction of the appellants. AS’s conviction under Sections
452, 326 and 323 IPC and BS’s conviction under Sections 302
and 452 IPC by the High Court are maintained. [Para 37, 38]
[267-B-D]
2.1 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.
The suspect is therefore considered to be innocent in the
interregnum between accusation and judgment. History reveals
that the burden on the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused
has its roots in ancient times. The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi
(1792–1750 B.C.), one of the oldest written codes of law put the
burden of proof on the accuser. Roman Law coined the principle
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
of actori incumbit (onus) probatio (the burden of proof weighs
on the plaintiff) i.e., presumed innocence of the accused.
[Para 13][257-D-E]
2.2 A characteristic feature of Common Law Criminal
Jurisprudence in India is also that an accused must be presumed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.