ANWAR ALI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 25-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
ANWAR ALI AND ANOTHER
v.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1121 of 2016)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302/34, 392, 201 and 420 – Prosecution under –
Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal by trial court in view of
contradictions in prosecution case – High Court reversed the
acquittal order holding that the contradictions were minor in nature
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In the case of circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime
was committed by the accused and none else – The contradictions,
which came to be considered by trial court, cannot be said to be
minor – Trial court was justified in recording the acquittal observing
that prosecution failed to complete entire chain of events – High
Court was not justified in reversing acquittal order.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Scope and ambit of –
Held: Court can interfere with order of acquittal only in compelling
circumstances, where the order under appeal is perverse – In the
present case, the acquittal order under appeal cannot be said to be
perverse as the same was based on appreciation of entire evidence
on record.
Investigation:
Defective investigation – Non-compliance of provisions u/ss.
166(3) & (4) and 100(4) Cr. P.C. – Held: Non-compliance of the
provisions may not be a ground to acquit the accused – But, where
recovery is seriously doubted, non-compliance would play an
important role – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 100(4)
and 166(3) & (4).
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 878
878
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
879
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Absence – Effect of –
Held: Proving of motive does supply a link in the chain of
circumstantial evidence – But absence of motive cannot be a ground
to reject prosecution case – Absence of motive can be a factor that
weighs in favour of the accused.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In exceptional cases where there are
compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found
to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order
of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the
presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the
trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible
should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.
[Para 5.2.1][894-E-F]
Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010] 9
SCR 1039; Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka
(2019) 5 SCC 436 : [2019] 6 SCR 994 – relied on.
1.2 If a decision is arrived at, on the basis of no evidence
or thoroughly unreliable evidence that no reasonable person
would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is
some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be
relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse
and the findings would not be interfered with. [Para 5.2.3]
[895-C-D]
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC
10 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 594 – relied on.
1.3 In the present case, the findings recorded by the trial
Court, based on appreciation of the entire evidence on record,
cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the evidence
on record and/or it cannot be said that the trial Court did not
consider any material evidence on record. [Para 10][905-B]
2.1 In case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances,
taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is
ANWAR ALI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability,
the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the
circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis
than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 5.4][899-A-B]
Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010] 9
SCR 1039; G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka
(2010) 8 SCC 593 : [2010] 10 SCR 377 – relied on.
2.2 The contradictions which came to be considered by the
trial Court cannot be said to be minor contradictions. The High
Court without givin

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