LexBABU versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 1039 BABU v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2009) AUGUST 11, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Prosecution case that husband murdered his wife by giving her sodium cyanide - Charge framed u/s. 302 - Acquittal by trial court - However, C conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - No direct evidence regarding taking or administering the poison to deceasecJ - All circumstances raising doubts - Failure of prosecution to establish that husband made phone calls to D the residence of deceased prior to the incident - Sodium Cyanide not recovered from husband nor remaining amount· of ayurvedic contraceptive medicine that husband allegedly mixed Cyanide in., recovered - In case of circumstantial evidence, motive must be established at least to certain extent E - Material contradiction in the prosecution case, thus, motive could not be proved - Thus, order of conviction by High Court .set aside and judgment of trial court restored - Circumstantial Evidence - Burden on prosecution to prove its case - Motive - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of - Power of appellate F court - Explained. According to the prosecution case, the appellant- h usband persuaded his wife to take an ayurvedic contraceptive medicine and under the guise he gave her Sodium Cyanide. The appellant was charge sheeted uls. G 302 IPC for murdering his wife by giving her Sodium Cyanide. The trial court acquitted the appellant. However, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 1039 H 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court B may be more, probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is C entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or look into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. [Para 7] [1056-E-H] D Balak Ram v. State of U. P. AIR 197 4 SC 2165; Shambhoo Missir & Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 315; Shai/endra Pratap & Anr. v. State of UP. AIR 2003 SC 1104; Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699; Budh E Singh & Ors. v. State of UP. AIR 2006 SC 2500; State of UP. v. Ramveer Singh AIR 2007 SC 3075; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (DJ by his LRs. & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State (2009) 10 SCC 206; Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. (2009) 16 SCC F 98; Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 445; Tulsiram Kanu v. The State AIR 1954 SC 1; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200; Khedu Mohton & Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 66; G Sambasivan and Ors. v. State of Kera/a (1998) 5 SCC 412; Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M. P. (2002) 4 SCC 85; State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755, relied on. Sheo Swarup and Ors. v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC H BABU v. STATE OF KERALA 1041 227; Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 A SCC 415; Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450; State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368; State of Uttar Prades.h v. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 271; Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras (2009) 10 SCC 401, referred to. B 2.1. 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 C 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 15] [1060-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.