KHEKH RAM versus STATE OF H.P.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 10-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] l l S.C.R. 956 
KHEKH RAM 
v. 
STATE OF H.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1110 of2016) 
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
Chapter IV - ss.20, 29 - In the wee hours of 20.10.2009 a police 
C 
patrol party noticed a vehicle moving towards them - On seeing the 
patrol party, the driver escaped and could not be apprehended -
During the search of the vehicle, contraband charas was found -
Appellant's bank passbook also found in the vehicle- Jn report u/s. 
173 Cr.P. C., the driver of the vehicle who fled was referred to as the 
appellant - Appellant arrested - Trial court acquitted the appellant 
D - High Court in appeal reversed the said acquittal - On appeal, 
E 
F 
· held: identification of the appellant to be the driver who absconded 
on seeing the patrol party is sine qua non for the proof of the charge 
leveled against him - However, on facts, the testimony of PW-I and 
PW-8 taken together by itself does not unimpeachably establish the 
identity of the driver of the vehicle to be appellant - Further, there 
was no test identification parade - Appellant was implicated in the 
offence due to the recovery of his bank passbook from the vehicle, 
however, in absence of any other cogent, coherent and clinching 
evidence of his identification as the driver of the car carrying the 
contraband, this document cannot be acted in isolation to be the 
basis of his conviction - Prosecution has failed to adduce conclusive 
and consistent evidence to bring home the charge against the 
appellant - With regard to the issue of identification, the view of 
trial court was overwhelmingly reasonable - Impugned judgment 
set aside and the acquittal of the appellant is restored - Appellant 
G be released from custody if not required in connection with any 
other case - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.173. 
H 
Criminal Trial - Standard of proof - Held: In a criminal trial 
suspicion however grave cannot take the place of proof -
Prosecution to succeed has to prove its case and establish the charge 
by adducing convincing evidence to ward off any reasonable doubt 
956 
KHEKH RAM v. STATE OF H.P. 
957 
about the complicity of the accused - Prosecution case has' to be in 
A 
the category of "must be true" and not "may be true". 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378 -Appellate power 
of High Court - Discussed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 An order of acquittal, if appealed against, ought 
not to be lightly interfered with, it is trite as well that the Appellate 
Court is fully empowered to review, re-appreciate and reconsider 
B 
the evidence on record and to reach its own conclusions both on 
questions of fact and on law. As a corollary, the Appellate Court 
would be within its jurisdiction and authority to dislodge an C 
acquittal on sound, cogent and persuasive reasons based on. the 
recorded facts and the law applicable. If only when the view taken 
by the Trial Court in ordering acquittal is an equally plausible 
. and reasonable one. that the Appellate Court would not readily 
· · substitute the same by another view available to it, on its D 
independent appraisal of the materials on record. This legally 
acknowledged restraint on the power of the Appellate Court 
would get attracted only if the two views are equally plausible 
and reasonable and not otherwise: If the view taken by the Trial 
Court is a possible but not a reasonable one when tested on the 
evidence on record and the legal principles applied, E 
unquestionably it can and ought to be displaced by a plausible 
· and reasonable view by the Appellate Court in furtherance of the 
uUimate cause of justice. Though no innocent ought to be 
punished, it is equally imperative that a guilty ought not to be let 
of casually lest justice is a casualty. [Para 15] [972-C~F] 
F 
1.2 Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 under which the appellant had been charged 
prescribes for punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis 
plant and cannabis. Section 29 of the Act ordains the punishment 
for abetment of and criminal conspiracy for commission of an G 
offence punishable under Chapter IV. The gravamen of the charge 
against the appellant is possessfon and transportation of charas 
as punishable under the above provisions. Thus, for the appellant 
to be guilty of the offence with which he had been charged, he 
must be proved to be in. conscious p

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