LexLUNARAM versus BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 (2009] 3 S.C.R. 706 LUNARAM v. BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2009) FEBRUARY 27, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 323 rlw s.34 - c Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - s.3(2)(5) - Trial Court convicted accused- respondents under s.302134 /PC and s.3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act - High Court held that the prosecution version was not believable and acquitted the respondents - Appeal against 0 acquittal - Held: Generally, order of acquittal is not to be interfered with as presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened by acquittal - Appellate court while considering appeal against acquittal is to interfere only when there are substantial reasons for doing so - On facts, the view E of High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence- Hence, interference by Supreme Court not warranted. F Appeal against acquittal - Powers of appellate court - Discussed. According to the prosecution, the accused- respondents boarded a bus in which deceased was seated and caused his death on account of previous enmity. While some of the purported eye-witnesses stated G that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted, the others said that he was strangulated. It was the further case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. H The trial court convicted respondents under ss.302 706 ' j < • - / "• LUNARAM v. BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS. 707 and 323 r/w s.34 IPC and s.3(2)(5) of the Scheduled A Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court held that the prosecution version was not believable and accordingly acquitted the respondents. Hence the present appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of C innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to D 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 the E conviction of an innocent. In a 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 F or not. [Para 6] [711-F-H; 712-A-B] 1.2. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly G unreasonable and irrelevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a substantial reason for interference. [Para 6] [712-A-B] H 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R. A Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P, 2003 (3) SCC 21; Shivaji \, Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC 793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996 (9) SCC 225; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana 2000 (4) SCC 484; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003 (11) SCC 519; State of B Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh 2003 (11) SCC 271; State of Punjab v. Pho/a Singh 2003 (11) SCC 58; Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal 2003 (11) SCC 527; Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of UP. 2004 (11) SCC 410 and Chandrappa and Ors. v. State ofKamataka 2007 (4) sec 415, relied on. c 2. In the present case, the High Court noted that the prosecution version was not believable. The doctor who conducted the post mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that D somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it > was in running condition. Considering the parameters of • appeal against the judgment of acquittal, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.