BIHARI NATH GOSWAMI versus SHIV KUMAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 24-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
BIHARI NA TH GOSWAMI 
A 
v. 
SHIV KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2004 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial-Appeal against acquittal-Interference with-Principles 
to be adopted-Two views possible-Held, view favourable to accused should 
be adopted-Exaggerations in prosecution's case-Acquittal on the basis of- C 
Not interfered with-Penal Code-Section 302. 
The case of the prosecution was that on the fateful day at ·9 p.m. the 
deceased was with the informant and some other persons in front of the house 
of 'M'. The accused persons came variously armed and abducted the deceased 
saying that the deceased would be killed. When the informant and others tried D 
to follow, they were threatened. The informant thereafter went to the house 
of 'M' with a havildar of a nearby police out-post The house of 'M' was locked 
and 'M' asked them to go away. PWs 11 and 12, both police officers, 
subsequently arrived at 10.30 p.m. and entered the house of 'M' on which 
' the accused persons fled away from the house. The police found the dead body 
of the deceased in the house of' M'. F.I.R. was registered at 11.05 p.m. 
E 
The Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 302 read 
with Section 149, I~dian Penal Code and under Section 364 read with Section 
149, Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the High Court, by a majority judgment, 
acquitted the accused persons. 
The father of the deceased filed an appeal by way of special leave petition 
before the Court The appellant contended, inter alia, that there was evidence 
of PWs 4, 5 and 9 which was sufficient to establish abduction of the deceased 
F 
by the accused persons. The body of the deceased was recovered from the 
house of accused 'M' soon after the abduction and therefore, natural inference G 
would be that the accused persons had caused the death of the deceased. It 
was contended that the delay. in registration of the F.I.R. is not material in 
view of the cogent evidr.nce led by the prosecution. On the other hand, the 
accused persons contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was 
full of exaggeration. Apart from the delay in registration of F.I.R., the presence 
~3 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A of havildar was doubtful. The havildar was not examined as a witness. When 
PWs 11 and 12 reached the place of occurrence, they were not told about the 
assailants or the havildar. No report was lodged at the police out~post, which 
was only a stone's throw from the place of occurrence. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no P-mbargo on the appellate Court reviewing the 
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is b~sed. 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 
C runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if 
two views are possible on the evidence produced 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 miscarriage 
·of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from 
D . the conviction of an innocent In the 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 [629~A-C] 
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2002] 2 Supreme 
E 567, referred to. 
2. The principle to be followed by appellate-Court considering the appeal 
against the judgement of acquittal is to interfere only when there are 
co~pelling and su,bstantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgement 
is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been 
F-
unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for 
interference. [629-D] 
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1973) 
SC 2622; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 Supreme 167; 
G Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore Jha v. 
State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7Supreme152; State of Punjab·v. Kamai/ Singh, 
(2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh

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