HARVINDER SINGH @ BACHHU versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 1157 · Decided: 13-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
HARVINDER SINGH @ BACHHU
v.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 266-267 of 2015)
OCTOBER 13, 2023
[M. M. SUNDRESH AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder 
and attempt to rape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witness 
despite contradictions, only because he was educated and a god fearing 
person.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 376, 511, 454, 380 r/w s.34 – Murder 
and attempt to rape – High Court convicted the appellant for murder 
and attempt to rape, setting aside the order of acquittal by the trial 
court – Correctness:
Held: Trial court gave substantial reasons for arriving at its conclusion 
– However, the High Court was persuaded by the homicidal death of the 
deceased while ignoring multiple fi ndings rendered by the trial court – High 
Court after holding that a homicide had occurred, blindly placed reliance 
upon the evidence of the informant and misconstrued the concept of 
reputation and blindly believed his  evidence – Furthermore, the statement 
of one of the witness that there was no prior enmity – Also non-availability 
of the fi ngerprint report and non-examination of the witnesses though the 
witnesses were available – Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond 
reasonable doubt, thus, the appellant entitled to the benefi t of doubt – 
Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and that of the trial 
court is restored. [Para 26, 28-29, 31]
Evidence Act ,1872 – s.3 – Fact – Reputation, forming part of 
facts – Connectivity between reputation and character – Evidentiary 
value of person’s reputation:
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1157 : 2023 INSC 907
1157
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
Held: Reputation is indeed a fact – Reputation has to be seen from 
the point of view of an identifi able group while character is what a person 
really is – Character is to be formed while reputation is to be acquired 
– Character may lead to formation of one’s reputation – Character and 
reputation do have an element of interconnectivity but both are distinct 
and diff erent – Reputation thus forms part of internal facts which arise 
through thoughts and feelings such as love, anger, fear, hatred and 
intention etc and thus, it is required to be proved in the form of opinion 
of persons who form it accordingly – When reputation is to be taken as 
a relevant fact, its evidentiary value becomes restrictive and limited – It 
is indeed a weak piece of evidence when becomes relatable to a fact in 
issue – Court cannot declare the reputation of a person based upon its 
own opinion merely because a person is educated and said to be God-
fearing, that by itself will not create a positive reputation – Courts are 
not expected to get carried away by the mere background of a person 
especially when his conduct, being a relevant fact, creates serious doubt 
– Conduct of a witness is a relevant fact to decide, determine and prove 
the reputation of a witness. [Para 16-18]
Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance upon:
Held: One has to be circumspect and cautious while undertaking 
the exercise of linking the evidence available – Courts should not lose 
sight of the fact that such evidence should unerringly lead and point out 
the accused alone, of course, on the facts of each case. [Para 22]
Evidence – Double Presumption – Presumption of innocence:
Held: When the view of the trial court, which had the benefi t of 
seeing the demeanour of the witnesses, is both a possible and plausible 
one, it shall not be replaced by yet another one – Presumption of 
innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened by the decision of 
the trial court when he gets an order of acquittal. [Para 23]
Witnesses – Material witnesses – Non-examination of:
Held: Non-examination of a witness, though material, by itself 
would not vitiate the trial – However, when facts are so glaring and 
with the witnesses available, particularly when they are likely to 
give a diff erent story, the Court shall take adequate note of it – When 
1159
HARVINDER SINGH @ BACHHU v. 
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
a circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Court by the 
defense and the Court is convinced that a prosecution witness has been 
deliberately withheld, as it in all probability would destroy its version, 
it has to take adverse notice – Anything contrary would be an aff ront 

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