SHYAMAL SAHA & ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 24-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 90 
SHYAMAL SAHA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE Of WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1490 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 24, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.) 
PENAL CODE, 1860: s. 302 - Murder - A/legation that the 
C victim-deceased was taken across the river by appellants in 
a boat and thereafter taken to jungle and killed - Trial court 
found that evidence of witnesses was inconsistent and 
acquitted the appellant - High Court applied the last seen 
theory and set aside the order of acquittal - On appeal, held: 
D Number of independent witnesses turned hostile and three 
important witnesses added more in their oral testimony before 
the court than what was stated by them before the Investigating 
officer during investigation - High Court believed their 
testimony and did not take into consideration the view of trial 
E court based on evidence that it was doubtful if the five persons 
boarded the boat to cross river as alleged by prosecution -
When the basic fact of the deceased having boarded a boat . 
and crossing the river with the appellants was in doubt, the 
substratum of the prosecution's case virtually would fall flat 
F and the truth of the subsequent events also becomes doubtful 
- High Court did not take into consideration that the chain of 
event must be so complete so as to leave no room for any 
hypothesis except that the accused was responsible for the 
death of the victim and it merely proceeded on last seen 
G theory - Since the first link was missing the view taken by trial 
court was not only a reasonable view but also probable view 
of the event - Order of acquittal passed by trial court restored. 
H 
90 
SHYAMAL SAHA & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST 
91 
BENGAL 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the A 
victim-deceased was with his mother PW-5 at about 5.00/ 
5.30 p.m. Thereafter, he and his nephew (CW-1) aged 
about 10 years went for a walk on the banks of the river 
Ganges where they met GS. At that time, the appellants 
also came there and called the deceased to go across the B 
river to see the Char (island). They boarded a boat and 
were joined by PW-6 and PW-11. The five of them then 
went across the river Ganges. When they reached the 
other side of the river, PW-6 and PW-11 went towards the 
thermal plant while the deceased and the appellants went c 
in a different direction towards the jungle. CW-1 
expressed his desire to go to the Char but the appellant 
no.1 asked him to return home. Thereafter, CW-1 came 
back to his house. The deceased did not return home. 
The next day, PW-1, the brother of the deceased lodged 0 
an FIR regarding disappearance of the deceased. After 
two days, the dead body of the deceased was found in 
the river tied to two iron chairs with a napkin around his 
neck. The appellants were charged for abducting and 
murdering the deceased. The trial court held that the 
• 
E 
charges were not proved and the testimony of 
prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and, therefore, 
acquitted both the appellants. The High Court set aside 
the acquittal. The instant appeal was filed challenging the 
order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The issue regarding scope of interference by 
the High Court in an acquittal given by the trial court was 
discussed in *Chandrappa. It was held in *Chandrappa G 
as follows: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, 
, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which 
the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal 
·Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or 
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A court on the evidence before it may reach its own 
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) 
Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and 
compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very 
strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring 
B 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 interfere with acquittal than to curtail 
c the power of the court to review the evidence and to 
come to its own conclusion. (4) 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 innoce

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