STATE OF HARYANA versus KRISHAN

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 951 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--( 
.. 
·~ 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. ~Si 
ST ATE OF HARYANA 
II. 
KRIS HAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2003) 
A 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
·s 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K.THAKKER, JJ.) 
Penal Code 1860- s. 302 - Conviction under - Acquittal 
by High Court - On the ground that ii/aqua Magistrate, c 
received FIR after a Jong delay; and ocular evidence at 
variance with medial evidence - Interference with - Held: Not . 
called for - Cumulative effect of factors highlighted by High 
Court made prosecution case unreliable - Evidence. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.386 - Appeal D 
against acquittal - Interference with - Scope of - Explained. 
According the prosecution case, the appellant 
caused lathi blow on the head of the deceased resulting . 
in his death. Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 302 E 
IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for 1 O years. 
High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the 
appellant on the ground that illaqua Magistrate received 
FIR after a long delay; and that the ocular evidence was 
at variance with medical evidence. Hence the present F 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no embargo on the appellate 
court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of G 
acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall 
not be interfered with because the presumption of 
innocence of the accused is further strength~ned by 
acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web 
951 
H 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
[2008] 15 S.C.R 
A 
of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two 
views are possible on the evidence adduced· in the case, 
one p_ointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to 
his innocence; the view which is favourable to the · 
accused should be adopted. The 
paramount 
B 
consideration of the .court i.s to ensure that miscarriage 
.· 
.. 
I 
. 
of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may 
arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the 
conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible 
: evidence ·.is ignored, .a duty is cast upon the appellate 
c court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused 
has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to 
whether any of the accused really committed any offence 
or not. The principle to be followed by the appellate court 
considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal 
0 
is to interfere only when there are substantial reasons for 
doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly 
·unreasonable and irrelevant and convincing materials 
have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a 
substantial reason for interference. [Para 5] [956-E-~; 
E 957-A, B] . 
1.2 Though some of the factors highlighted by. the 
High Court may not create a dent in the prosecution 
. version but the cumulative effect certainly casts a shadow 
upon the credibility of the prosecution version. The view 
F 
taken is a possible view. Therefore, no interference is 
called for. [Para 6] [957-E] 
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. 2003 (3) SCC 21; Shivaji 
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra 1973 (2) SCC 
793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi· v. State of Gujarat 1996 (9) 
G SCC 225; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana 2000 (4) SCC 
484; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003 (11) SCC 519; 
State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh 2003 (11) SCC 271; State 
of Punjab v. Pho/a Singh 2003 (11) SCC 58; Suchand Pal 
v, Phani Pal 2003 (11) SCC 527; Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. 
H 
State of UP. 2004 (11) sec 410, relied on. 
' 
STATE OFHARYANA v. KRISHAN 
953 
.. ' 
/>-
Case Law Reference : 
A 
2003 (3) sec 21 
Rel.ied on. 
Para 5 
1973 (2) sec 793 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
1996 (9) sec 22s 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
8 
.., . 
2000 (4) sec 484 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
_. 
2003 (11) sec 519 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
2003 (11) sec 21t 
Relied on. 
Para 5 'c 
2003 (11) sec 58 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
2003 (11) sec 527 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
2004 (11) sec 410 
Relied on. 
Para 5 
-...; 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 915 of 2003. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.1.2003 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
E 
Appeal No. 374-SB-1989. 
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the Appellant. 
..,I., 
Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for the Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and 
G 
Haryana High Court holding that the respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.