STATE OF HARYANA versus HUSSAIN

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 3 S.C.R. 181 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
HUSSAIN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1131 of2007) 
JUNE 29, 2016 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 380, 457 and 460 - Theft and house 
breaking by night - Prosecutio1i case that assailants committed 
house breaking by night and theft in the dwelling house, resulting 
in death of complainant's husband and injuries to the complainant 
- Conviction of respondents for commission of offence u/ss. 380, 
457 and 460 and sentenced accordingly __:.However, acquittal by 
High Court - On appeal, held: View taken by the High Court there 
were infirmities in the prosecution case which are fatal is based on 
appreciation of evidence and was taken within its jurisdiction -
High Court gave cogent reasons in support of its view - There is no 
infirmity or perversity in the reasoning of High Court - High Court 
also held that the accused have undergone four years' jail sentence 
partly as under trial and remaining after conviction by the trial 
court - Thus, the order passed by the High Court does noi call for 
interference - No need to undertake the exercise of appreciating 
the whole evidence in the instant appeal. 
Appeal -Appeal against acquittal - Re-appreciation of evidence 
by Supreme Court - Held: When the view taken by the High Court 
while reversing the judgment of the trial court appears _to be just 
and reasonable which is also supported by cogent. reasoning then 
re-appreciation of evidence not required - It is _only when the High 
Court fails to record any reason or fails to appreciate the evidence 
or records any material finding, wholly perverse _or against any 
provision of law. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is a settled principle of law that if the view 
taken by the High Court while reversing the judgment of the 
trial court appears to be just and reasonable which is also 
181 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
182 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016) 3 S.C.R. 
supported by cogent reasoning then this Court would not re-
appreciate the evidence again especially when the appeal arises 
out of the order of acquittal. It is only when the High Court while 
reversing the judgment of the trial court fails to record any reason 
or fails to appreciate the evidence or when the High Court records 
any material finding which is wholly perverse or against any 
provision of law, this Court may consider it proper to examine 
the issues arising in the case and in appropriate case interfere in 
such finding. Such is not the case here. [Paras 17, 18] [186-C-E] 
1.2 The High Court on appreciation of evidence acquitted 
respondent No. 2 of all the charges holding that fatal blow to 
deceased was not attributable to respondent No. 2 but it was 
attributable to another accused who was a declared proclaimed 
offender; that the recovery of the stolen articles made at the 
instance of the accused persons was unbelievable because it was 
made from the open place which was accessible to all and no 
independent witnesses were examined to prove the factum of 
recovery; that Lambardar and Chowkidar of the concerned Gram 
Panchayat were available yet they did not join at the time of 
recovery and no explanation was offered by the prosecution as to 
why they could not join; the evidence adduced by the prosecution 
was not sufficient to prove that the stolen property belonged to 
the complainant; and that since the accused in the meantime have 
undergone four years' jail sentence partly as under trial and 
remaining after conviction by the trial court, they are entitled for 
acquittal of the charges in the light of the infirmities in the case 
of prosecution which are fatal. [Para 14] (185-E-G] 
1.3 The view taken by the High Court is based on 
appreciation of evidence and the same was taken within its 
jurisdiction. The High Court has given its reasoning as to why it 
has reversed the finding of the Trial Court. It is one of the 
possible views, which the High Court is capable to take on 
appreciation of evidence and it has so taken. There is no infirmity 
or perversity in the reasoning of the High Court, which may 
persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned order. In these 
circumstances, there is no need to undertake the exercise of 
appreciating the whole evidence in this appeal. Further, the State 
was not able to point out any legal or jurisdictional error or/and 
extreme perversity in the reasoning of the High Court, which 
STATE OF HARYA

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