STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus NARAYAN

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 17-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 14 S.C.R. 699 
·-+-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
A 
v. 
NARAYAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1629 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 17, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
+ 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
" 
Penal Cod~, 1860 - ss. 302, 316 and 309 - Appeal 
against acquittal - Power and duty of the Appellate Court - c 
Allegation that accused murdered his wife - Accused found 
lying in a pool of blood, gasping for breath while his wife lay 
dead besides him - Throats of both accused and his wife were 
found cut - Conviction by Trial Court - But acquittal by High 
Court - Appeal against - Held: Presumption of innocence of D 
the accused is further strengthened by acquittal - Appellate 
,-"! 
Court while considering an appeal against acquittal can inter-
x 
fere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons 
for doing so - On facts, the weapon of offence was found un-
der the clothes of deceased and therefore the -defence ver-
E 
sion that deceased probably took her life after causing seri: 
ous injuries on the neck of accused not improbable - Rea-
sons which weighed with High Court to direct acquittal cannot 
be characterized as perverse -Acquittal accordingly affirmed. 
Criminal jurisprudence: 
F 
~', 
-~ 
Administration of justice - Held: In criminal cases, if two 
views are possible on the evidence adduced, one pointing to 
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the 
view favourable to the accused should be adopted. 
According to the prosecution, accused-Respondent G 
committed the offence of murdering his wife as he sus-
pected that she was carrying a child in her womb from 
some other person. 
699 
H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A · 
Respondent was found lying in a pool of blood, gasp-
+-
I 
-'i 
ing for breath while his wife lay dead besides him. The 
throat of both Respondent and his wife were found cut. -
Placing reliance on the· circumstantial evidence, the 
Trial Court held the Respondent guilty under ss.302, 316 
8 .··and 309 of IPC and sentenced him to ·undergo life impris-
onment The High Court however accepted the possibil-
ity of a suicide pact between Respondent and his wife or 
that Respondent's wife committed suicide after inflicting 
blows on the ·neck of Respondent who survived and af-
C · ter holding that the prosecution version was not estab-
lished, acquitted the Respondent. Hence the present ap-
peal. 
I 
Dismissing the appeal, th.e Court 
HELD:1.1. There is no embargo on the appellate 
Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of 
acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall 
not be interfered with because the presumption of inno-
cence of the accused is further strengthened by acquit-
E tat. The golden thread which runs through the web of 
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two 
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, · 
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to 
his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused 
F should be adopted; The paramount consideration of the 
Court is to ensure that miscarriage 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 inno-
ce·nt. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a 
duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the 
G · · evidence where the accuse·d has been acquitted, for the 
purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused 
really committed any offence or not. [Para 6] [704-B-E] 
1.2. The principle to be followed by appellate Court 
H . considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal 
+ 
+-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARAYAN 
701 
is to interfere only when there are compelling and sub-
A 
stantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment 
is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing ma-
terials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, 
it is a compelling·reason for interference. [Para 6] [704-F-
G] 
B 
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
(2002) 2 Supreme 567; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. 
State of Maharashtra AIR (1973) SC 2622; Ramesh Babula/ 
Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 Supreme 167; Jaswant 
Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore C 
Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State 
of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh (2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of 
Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003) 7 Supreme 17 and 
VN. Ratheesh v. State of Kera/a (2006) 10 SCC 617 - relie

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