SADHU SARAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 26-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 913 
SADHU SARAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1467-1468 of2005) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 -
Prosecution under - Death of three persons and injury of eye-witness 
A 
B 
- Caused by five accused - Trial court convicted all the accused 
C 
and sentenced three of the accused to life imprisonment and two of 
the accused to death sentence for the offence of murder - High 
Court acquitted all the accused of all the charges - On appeal, 
held: The reasons given by High Court acquitting the accused are 
flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of 
evidence - Prosecution case was fully supported by the ocular 
evidence of two eye-witnesses - Non-examination of injured wilness 
would not 'be fatal to the prosecution case, in the facts of the case -
The prosecution case cannot be detailed on the ground of absence 
of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eye-witnesses 
is trustworthy -All the accused are liable to be convicted - However, 
the death sentence of the two accused awarded by the trial court is 
converted to life imprisonment and ali the accused are sentenced to 
life imprisonment. 
D 
E 
Appeal - Against acquittal - Power of appellate court - Scope 
of - Held: Court has the power to review and relook the entire 
F 
evidence - Appellate Court can interfere with the acquittal order if 
it is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law. 
Judgment - Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion in a 
;udgment - Without proper reason, the conclusion becomes lifeless. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always 
been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal 
against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the 
presumption of innocen.ce in favour of the accused is reinforced, 
913 
G 
H 
914 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal 
only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, the 
paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice 
and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the 
accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that 
may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the 
conviction of an innocent. While dealing with an appeal against 
acquittal, the appellate court has no absolute restriction in law to 
review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of 
acquittal is founded. If the appellate Court, on scrutiny, finds that 
the decision of the Court below is based on erroneous views and 
against settled position of law, then the interference of the 
appellate Court with such an order is imperative. [Paras 18 and 
19] f923-E-F; 924-BJ 
Sambasivan and Others v. State of Kera/a (1998) 5 SCC 
412: 1998 (3) SCR 280; Chandrappa v. State (Jf 
Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415: 2007 (2) SCR 630 -
relied on. 
2.1 Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, without 
proper reason the conclusion becomes lifeless. The judgment of 
the High Court deserves to be set aside on the ground of lack of 
E reasoning. The reasons given by the High Court to reverse the 
conviction and sentence of the accused are flimsy, untenable and 
bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence. (Para 21) 
(925-D; 929-EJ 
2.2 The evidence of PW 1, who is an eyewitness who lost 
F 
three sons in the fateful incident was consistent and there was no 
major deviations or discrepancies and if at all any minor 
discrepancies that occurred in the evidence of PWl might have 
been due to the long gap between the date of incident and the 
long delay in examination, more so, those discrepancies are not 
material in bringing home the guilt of the accused. The statements 
G of PW 1 are fairly corroborated by the statements of PW 2. 
[Para 21)[926-B-C] 
2.3 There is no reasoIJ. whatsoever to disbelieve the 
evidence of PW2 , another key eyewitness present at the time of 
incident. Nothing has come out in.his examination-in-chief or in 
H cross-examination which creates a doubt on the veracity of his 
SADHU SARAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
statement. Moreover, he has been consistent in his version and 
fnlly snpported the prosecntion story. [Para 21][926-E-F] 
2.4 The .High Court for acquitting the respondents, had 
mainly relied upon the medical evidence in a ve

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