STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MOHAN LAL

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 16-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 406 
.->
A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
V. 
MOHAN LAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2003) 
B 
APRIL 16, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
... 
. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378 - Appeal 
c against acquittal - Powers of appellate Court - Ambit and 
scope of - Discussed - On facts, accused faced trial for 
allegedly committing offences under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act but he was acquitted by the trial court -
Acquittal was upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: 
D Views expressed by trial court and High Court were 
reasonable and possible views and there was no perversity 
.... "' 
therein - Consequently acquittal upheld - Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7, 13(1 )(d) r/w 13(2). 
E 
According to prosecution, the accused-respondent 
demanded bribe which was paid but instead of accepting 
it directly, the accused asked the person concerned to 
put currency notes in his almirah and that the Motbir 
witnesses while searching the sitting room of the 
~ ... 
F 
accused recovered the currency notes from the almirah. 
Respondent faced trial. for alleged commission of 
offences punishable under ss.7, 13(1)(d) rlw s.13(2) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court 
acquitted the respondent holding that the accusations 
G against him were not established and that the 
) 
prosecution version was not credible. The acquittal of 
respondent was upheld by the High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
H 
406 
1, 
t 
_, 
-i 
.~ 
y 
. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHAN LAL 
407 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. A bare reading of s.378 CrPC makes it 
clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the 
legislature on the powers of the appellate court in dealing 
with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is 
B 
filed, the High Court has full power to re-appreciate, 
review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material 
on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach 
its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions 
of fact and of law are open to determination by the High c 
Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. [Para 8] 
[413-E-G] 
1.2. However, in case of acquittal, there is a double 
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the 
presumption of innocence is available to him under the 
D 
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every 
person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is 
proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. 
Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the 
presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened 
E 
but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial 
court. [Para 9] [413-G-H; 414-A-B] 
1.3. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to 
be convicted of an offence which is not established by 
the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable 
F 
doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there 
is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of 
probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise particular 
to each case. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, 
trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based 
upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the 
evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and 
degrees of it, cannot be expressed in terms of units to 
G-
be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such 
units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There 
H 
408 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
,.: 
A is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation 
.. 
of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. 
Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a 
robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained 
intuitions of the Judge. While the protection given by the 
B criminal process to the accused persons is not to be 
eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of 
trivialities would make a mockery of administration of 
criminal justice. [Paras 35, 36 and 37] [429-C-H; 430-A-F] 
,. 
c 
1.4. No interference is called for in the present appeal 
which is dismissed accordingly as the views expressed 
by the trial court and the High Court are reasonable and 
possible views and there is no perversity therein. [Para 
39] [430-G-H] 
D 
Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor(1934) 61IA398; NurMohd. 
v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151; Prandas v. State AIR 1954 SC 
.,.. 
~. 
36; Surajpal Singh v. State 1952 SCR 193; Ajmer Singh v. 
State of Punjab 1953 SCR 418; Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 
1955 SC 

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