PREM SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 02-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 51 
PREM SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 
(P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI 
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 - Prosecution under -
Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High -Court - On 
C 
Appeal, held: High Court reversed the acquittal order entirely 
on the basis of evidence of two eye-witnesses, without 
considering inherent lacunae in their evidence - High Court 
failed to test the prosecution case in the totality of the facts -
Conclusion reached by the trial court was reasonable and o 
possible conclusion - Hence, accused entitled to acquittal. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal 
against acquittal - Power of High Court - Held: So long as 
the view taken by the trial court was a possible view, High 
Court ought not to disturb the findings of trial court. 
Appellant-accused alongwith six others, was 
charged u/ss.120-B, 148 and 302 r/w.s.149 IPC and u/s.25 
of Arms Act, 1959. Trial court in view of non-examination 
E 
of a prime witness, inherent lacunae in the evidence of F 
the two eye-witnesses, suspicion about recovery of 
firearms etc., acquitted all the accused of all the charges. 
High Court, in appeal of the State, reversed the acquittal 
order as regards the appellant-accused and another co-
accused and convicted them uls. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC. 
G 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There are certain parameters within which 
51 
H 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
the High Court is required to exercise its powers under 
Section 378 Cr.P.C., while hearing the State's appeal. An 
appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and 
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal 
is founded. Cr.P.C. puts no limitation, restriction or 
B 
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate 
court on the evidence before it may reach its own 
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. Various 
expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling 
reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong 
c circumstances', 'distorted 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 emphasize the reluctance of 
0 
an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail 
the power of the court to review the evidence and to 
come to its own conclusion. 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 
E fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence 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 
F 
strengthened by the trial court. If two reasonable 
conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on 
record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding 
of acquittal recorded by the trial court. [Paras 5 and 11] 
[57-B-H; 58-A; 60-F] 
G 
Murugesan vs. State Through Inspector of Police (2012) 
10 sec 383:2012 (13) SCR 1 - relied on. 
1.2. If a conclusion with regard to the innocence of 
the accused is reasonably possible on the basis of the 
H 
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
53 
evidence and materials on record, the High Court ought 
A 
not to have disturbed the findings r~corded by the Trial 
Court, even if, on a re-appreciation of the evidence, it was 
inclined to take a different view. So long the view taken 
by the Trial Court was a possible view the exercise of the 
appellate power of the High Court under Section 378 
B 
CrPC, would remain circumscribed by the well settled 
parameters. [Para 11] [60-F-G] 
2.1. In the present case, the Trial Court came to the 
conclusion that the accused should be acquitted. An 
inference adverse to the prosecution on account of non-
C 
examination of the person, who could be the star witness 
for the prosecution, the inherent lacunae in the evidence 
of PWs 11 and 12 (the eye-witnesses); the doubt and 
· suspicion with regard to the bonafides of the recovery of 
the fire arms; the failure of the prosecution to establish 
D 
the linkage between the weapons recovered and the 

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