LexRAHIL & ANR. versus STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 607 : 2025 INSC 858 Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No. 1856 of 2014) 25 June 2025 [Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal passed by the trial court and convicting the appellants for offence u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment. Headnotes† Appeal against acquittal – Reversal of acquittal – When not justified – Prosecution’s case that co-accused-‘S’ (mother and wife of the appellants) and her associates had a quarrel with deceased and ‘S’ threatened to kill the deceased, however, matter was reported to the police and was amicably settled – Later, on receiving a phone call from ‘S’, the deceased went to her residence whereafter, he went missing – FIR filed – Trial court convicted ‘S’ u/s.302/34 with her brother, who was also convicted u/s.201/34 with another co-accused, however, the appellants were acquitted – High Court inter alia upheld the conviction of ‘S’ but, reversed the acquittal of the appellants and held them guilty u/s.302/34, IPC – Appeals filed by the appellants and ‘S’, who died in the meantime and her appeal abated: Held: Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence – After the patch up the deceased returned to his residence – No direct, credible and reliable evidence that the he had actually gone to ‘S’s residence on the fateful evening – Possibility of the witnesses implicating ‘S’ and other family members in the crime out of mere suspicion cannot be ruled out – Further, admittedly, there is no direct evidence with regard to presence of the appellants at their residence when the murder is alleged to have occurred – High Court reversed the acquittal on the specious logic that appellants being the son and husband of ‘S’ and ordinarily residing with her ought to be presumed to be present in the house – Furthermore, * Author 608 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports in absence of medical evidence that murder was committed by a single person, High Court incorrectly drew its own inference that ‘S’ was assisted by others in committing the crime and roped in her family members-the appellants – High Court not justified in reversing the findings of acquittal on the basis of mere surmises – Impugned judgment set aside to the extent it convicts the appellants. [Paras 11, 19-22, 26, 29] Appeal against acquittal – Interference by appellate court – Scope: Held: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court would not interfere with the finding of the trial court unless it is wholly perverse or against the weight of evidence on record – In the event acquittal is based on findings which are reasonable and plausible, appellate court would be slow to interfere with the same as the presumption of innocence stands re-enforced by the acquittal. [Para 16] Criminal Law – Burden of proof – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Adverse inference under, when cannot be drawn – Prosecution’s case that co-accused-‘S’ (mother and wife of the appellants) and her associates had a quarrel with deceased and ‘S’ threatened to kill the deceased, however, matter was reported to the police and was amicably settled – Later, on receiving a phone call from ‘S’, the deceased went to her residence whereafter, he went missing – FIR filed – Trial court convicted ‘S’ u/s.302/34 with her brother, while the appellants were acquitted – Appellants’ presence at ‘S’s residence when the murder of the deceased is alleged to have occurred was not proved – However, High Court reversed the acquittal of both the appellants and held them guilty u/s.302/34, IPC holding that they being the son and husband of ‘S’ and ordinarily residing with her ought to be presumed to be present in the house: Held: In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution – Only when it discharges the initial onus, that is, proves the incriminating attending circumstances to establish the cause of death was within the ‘special knowledge’ of an accused does the onus shift and an adverse inference against such accused may be drawn if he fails to discharge such onus – In the present case, in absence of reliable evidence proving the presence of the appellants at ‘S’s residence when the deceased is said to have come there, it cannot be said that the prosecution had discharged [2025] 6 S.C.R. 609 Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.