NEPAL SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 24-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 982 
NEPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2002) 
APRIL 24, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
PENAL 
CODE, 
1860/CODE 
OF 
CRIMINAL 
C PROCEDURE, 1973: 
Sections 304-B, 498-A/378 - Wife committing suicide -
Demand of dowry alleged - Husband was charged for his 
wife's death - Trial Court acquitting him, giving him benefit 
0 of doubt - High Court convicting him - Power of appellate 
court against acquittal - Discussed - On facts of the case, 
Held: Trial Court rightly noted there was no evidence 
regarding demand of dowry - High Court ought not have 
interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court 
E directing acquittal. 
According to the Prosecution, deceased and 
appellant were husband and wife and that the appellant 
was not satisfied with the dowry and; that there was 
demand for gas connection and money. Gas connection 
F was arranged. Before the money could be arranged, 
deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. 
Appellant was tried and the trial court acquitted him giving 
benefit of doubt. On appeal by State, the High Court 
convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 
G 304-8, 498-A IPC. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Bare reading of Section 378 Cr.P.C. 
H 
982 
.r 
-1 
·~ 
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
983 
(appeal in case of acquittal) makes it clear that no 
A 
restrictions have been imposed by the legislature on the 
powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals 
against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High 
Court has full power to reappreciate, review and 
reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which 
B 
the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own 
conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact 
and of law are open to determination by the High Court 
in an appeal against an order of acquittal. It cannot, 
however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a c 
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the 
presumption of innocence is available to him under the 
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every 
person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is 
proved to be guilty by a competent court of 1a·w. 
0 
Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the_ 
presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened 
but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial 
court. [Paras 9 and 10] [992-E-H; 993-A-B] 
1.2. In Chandrappa the following general principles 
E 
regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with 
an appeal against an order of acquittal were culled out: 
(i) An appellate court has full power to review, 
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon 
which the order of acquittal is founded. 
F 
(ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no 
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such 
. power and an appellate court on the evidence before 
it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions G 
of fact and of law. 
(iii) Various expressions, such as, "substanti.al and 
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", 
"very 
strong 
circumstances", 
"distorted 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. 
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not 
intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate 
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such 
phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes 
of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an 
appellate court to interfem with acquittal than to 
curtail the power of the court to review the evidence 
and to come to its own conclusion. 
(iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind 
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption 
in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of 
innocence is available to him under the fundamental 
principle of criminal jurisprudel'.lce that every person 
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is 
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, 
the accused having secured his acquittal, the 
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, 
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. 
(v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the 
E 
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court 
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded 
by the trial court. [Para 35] [1007-0-H; 1008-A-D] 
F 
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007 (4) 
sec 415, relied on. 
Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor(1934) 

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