RAJESH PRASAD versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1046 · Decided: 07-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
RAJESH PRASAD
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 111-113 of 2015)
JANUARY 7, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302/34, 120B – Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 – ss. 3, 4 – In the instant case, the accused-respondent
committed offence u/s 302 r/w 34 and 120B IPC by causing death
of father of appellant-informant, and other deceased victim by use
of explosive substance (bomb) and thereby was also charged u/s 3/
4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – On trial, the accused
was convicted and along with the term of imprisonment was also
awarded death sentence – High Court acquitted him of all charges
on the ground that there were flaws in the investigation and also in
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses – While acquitting the
accused, the High Court directed the appellant to be tried for the
offence of perjury – Hence the instant appeal against setting aside
the conviction of the respondent and also against the initiation of
the proceeding for perjury – Held: Trial Court failed to appreciate
the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 4 and 7 in proper perspective and further
failed to recognize the fact that PW-7 (the appellant) did not at all
support the case of the prosecution although he was the informant
and hence, erroneously convicted the accused – However, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, and bearing
in mind that there were two deaths in the incident which was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt, only the direction to trial court to
initiate proceedings of perjury against the appellant is set aside –
Rest of the impugned judgment of acquittal is affirmed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Power and
Scope – Appellate court has full powers to review and to reverse
the acquittal – For the High Court to take a different view on the
evidence there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for
holding that the trial court was wrong – The High Court in dealing
with an appeal against the acquittal ought to be cautious because
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1046
1046
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
the presumption of the innocence in the favour of the accused is
not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial but
if the court holds otherwise then it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of the acquittal.
Appeal – Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court –
Extent and scope in cases of appeal against acquittal – The exercise
of such power is rare in cases the order of the acquittal has been
confirmed by the High Court – Such power can be exercised only
when the High Court’s conclusion is absolutely wrong, legally
erroneous and perverse keeping in mind the facts of the case.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High
Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally
erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring
some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the
same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution. Such fetters on the right to
entertain an appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a
person, who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal
charge, to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the
case, even though it is held by a superior court. An appeal cannot
be entertained against an order of acquittal which has, after
recording valid and weighty reasons, has arrived at an
unassailable, logical conclusion which justifies acquittal. [Para
30][1063-D-G]
2. The circumstances under which this Court may entertain
an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction,
may be summarised as follows:(i)Where the approach or reasoning
of the High Court is perverse:(a) where incontrovertible evidence
has been rejected by the High Court based on suspicion and
surmises, which are rather unrealistic.(b) Where the intrinsic
merits of the testimony of relatives, living in the same house as
the victim, were discounted on the ground that they were
‘interested’ witnesses. (c) Where testimony of witnesses had been
disbelieved by the High Court, on an unrealistic conjecture of
personal motive on the part of witnesses to implicate the accused,
when in fact, the witnesses had no axe to grind in the said matter.
RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC.
A
B

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