Holding

The trial court's acquittal stands; the High Court's conviction is set aside.

Summary

The appellant, Nepal Singh, was charged with dowry demand and cruelty leading to his wife's suicide under Sections 304‑B and 498‑A IPC. The trial court acquitted him, finding no evidence of any dowry demand and granting him the benefit of doubt. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of appellate power under Section 378 of the CrPC and reiterated that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence. It held that the High Court had no substantial or compelling reason to disturb the trial court’s finding, as there was no evidence of dowry demand and the reasoning that suicide implied guilt was indefensible. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and restored the acquittal, allowing the appellant’s appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can set aside an acquittal in the absence of evidence of dowry demand.
Scope of the appellate court's power under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code in appeals against acquittal.
Whether the inference that a suicide necessarily indicates the accused's guilt is sufficient for conviction.
Application of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence in dowry death cases.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304-B, s. 498-A

Subjects

dowry deathsuicideacquittalappellate jurisdictionreasonable doubtSection 304-BSection 498-ACriminal Procedure Codepresumption of innocence

Judgment

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 982

A NEPAL SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2002)
APRIL 24, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]

PENAL CODE, 1860/CODE OF CRIMINAL
C PROCEDURE, 1973:
Sections 304-B, 498-A/378 - Wife committing suicide -
Demand of dowry alleged - Husband was charged for his
wife's death - Trial Court acquitting him, giving him benefit
of doubt - High Court convicting him - Power of appellate
0
court against acquittal - Discussed - On facts of the case,
Held: Trial Court rightly noted there was no evidence
regarding demand of dowry - High Court ought not have
interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court
E directing acquittal.

According to the Prosecution, deceased and
appellant were husband and wife and that the appellant
was not satisfied with the dowry and; that there was .r
demand for gas connection and money. Gas connection
F was arranged. Before the money could be arranged,
deceased committed suicide by consuming poison.
Appellant was tried and the trial court acquitted him giving
benefit of doubt. On appeal by State, the High Court
convicted him for offences punishable under Sections
G 304-8, 498-A IPC. Hence the appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Bare reading of Section 378 Cr.P.C.

H 982
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 983

(appeal in case of acquittal) makes it clear that no A
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 filed, the High
Court has full power to reappreciate, review and
reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which B
the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own
-1
conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact
and of law are open to determination by the High Court
in an appeal against an order of acquittal. It cannot,
however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a c
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the
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 1a·w. 0
Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the_
presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened
but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court. [Paras 9 and 10] [992-E-H; 993-A-B]

1.2. In Chandrappa the following general principles E
·~
regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
an appeal against an order of acquittal were culled out:

(i) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon F
which the order of acquittal is founded.

(ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
. power and an appellate court on the evidence before
it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions G
of fact and of law.

(iii) Various expressions, such as, "substanti.al and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",
"very strong circumstances", "distorted H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A conclusions", "glaring 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
B appellate court to interfem with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the court to review the evidence
and to come to its own conclusion.

(iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind •
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption
c in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudel'.lce that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly,
D the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
E basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court. [Para 35] [1007-0-H; 1008-A-D]

Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007 (4)
sec 415, relied on.
F
Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor(1934) 61IA398; NurMohd.
v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151; Prandas v. State AIR 1954 SC
36; Surajpa/ Singh v. State 1952 SCR 193; Ajmer Singh v.
State of Punjab 1953 SCR 418; Atley v. State of UP. AIR
G 1955 SC 807; Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra (1955)
2 SCR 1285; Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1961) 3
SCR 120; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2
SCR 405; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
1973 (2) SCC 793; K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P (1979) 1
H SCC 355; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996)
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 985

9 SCC 225; Al/arakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) A
3 SCC 57; Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP. (2002) 4 SCC 85;
Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
(2002) 6 SCC 470; Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha
(2003) 12 SCC 606 and Kallu v. State of MP. (2006) 10 SCC
313, referred to. B
2. 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 doubt.
Though this standard is a higher standard, there is,
however, no absolute standard. What degree of
c
probability amounts to "proof' is an exercise particular
to each cas«;!. [Para 36] [1008-E-F]

"The Mathematics of Proof II": Glanville Williams,
Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p.340, D
- » referred to.

-I
3.1. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are'
free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot
afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute E
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional
response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts
as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the
-. -+ evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere
vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an
F
imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair
doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must
,1
grow out of the evidence in the case. [Para 37] [1009-B-
D]
_j 3.2: The concepts of probability, and the degrees of G
....., it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be
mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units
constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an
unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the
degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R.

A 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
criminal process to the accused persons is not to be
eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of
B trivialities would make a mockery of administration of
criminal justice. [Para 38] [1009-D-G]

State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal 1988 (4) SCC 302, relied
on.
c Krishnan and Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of
Police 2003 (7) SCC 56, referred to.

4. During cross-examination PW 5 (deceased's
father) accepted that it was not mentioned in the FIR that
D gifts and other articles were given as dowry. He accepted
that his father in law Udai Singh had settled the marriage
between the accused and the deceased. Interestingly "- -
Udai Singh (DW1) has stated that there was no demand
from the side of the accused at the time of marriage. The
deceased and .her parents had never complained to him
E
that the accused or any member of his family was raising
any demand of any kind when confronted with the
statement made during investigation. PW5 accepted that
he had not stated many vital things during investigation
~-
which for the first time he was speaking in Court. Similar
F is the position with PW7 the brother of the deceased. He
also accepted on being confronted with the statement
made during investigation that he had not stated
particularly certain relevant aspects. Similar is the
position with the evidence of mother of deceased (PW6).
G (Para 41] (1010-D-G] ~
,.
,:..
5. As was rightly noted by the trial court there was
no evidence towards the claim regarding any demand of
dowry. That being so the High Court ought not to have
H interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial

,,
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 987

'l( court directing acquittal. The reasoning of the High Court A
that something must have happened and otherwise
deceased would not have committed. suicide is clearly
indefensible. That certainly could not have been a reason
to set aside the trial Court's judgment of acquittal. [Para
42] [1010-H; 1011-A-B] B
Case Law Reference:

(1934) 61 .IA 398 referred to Para 12

AIR 1945 PC 151 referred to Para 16
c
AIR 1954 SC 36 referred to Para 17
.1952 SCR 193 referred to Para 19

1953 SCR 418 referred to Para 20
D
AIR 1955 SC 807 referred to Para 22
->·
(1955) 2 SCR 1285 referred to Para 23
(1961) 3 SCR 120 referred to Para 24
(1963) 2 SCR 405 referred to Para 25 E

1973 (2) sec 793 referred to Para 26

(1979) 1 sec 355 referred to Para 28
-~
(1996) 9 sec 225 referred to Para 29 F
(20.021 3 sec 57 referred to Para 30

(20021 4 sec 85 referred to Para 31

(2002) 6 sec 470 referred to Para 32
G
,..,.
~
(2003) 12 sec 606 referred to Para 33

(2006) 10 sec 313 referred to Para 34

2001 (4) sec 415 'relied on Para 35
H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A 1988 (4) sec 302 relied on Para 38
2003 (7) sec 56 referred to Para 39

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 383 of 2002.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.07.1997 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. No. 99-DBN
1993.

Sushi! Kumar, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Aditya Kumar,
C Aishwarya Bhati and Anmol Rani for the Appellant.

Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' (for Rajesh Ranjan) and T.V.
George for the Respondent.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court convicting the appellant for offences punishable
under Sections 304-B, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
E (in short the 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine with default
stipulation for the first offence. But no separate sentence was
awarded in respect of the later offence. The appellant faced trial
before learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and was acquitted by ~-
F learned Sessions Judge giving him the benefit of doubt. The
State Government preferred an appeal which was allowed by
the High Court.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
G The marriage of Manju (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') was solemnised with appellant-Nepal Singh on
26.1.1989. Though Yudhishter Singh (PW5) the father of the
deceased had spent sufficient money for the marriage, accused
Nepal Singh was not satisfied with the dowry. He demanded a
H gas connection which deceased conveyed to her mother
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 989
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Lajwant (PW6) on which her father (PW5) got the gas A
connection and gave it to Manju.

On 16.5.1991, deceased had come to Bapora (village of
her father) to attend the marriage of the d~ughter of Sh yam Pal
Singh (brother of her father). Deceased told her father (PW5)
B
and mother (PW6) that accused had completed his course and
wanted her to bring Rs. One lakh from them and that if she
~
failed to do so, accused would turn her out of the house.
Yudhishter Singh (PW5) told her that he would arrange for the
money.
c
On 23.5.1991 deceased left for Kanti (village of her in-
laws) accompanied by Sunil Kumar (PW?), her brother. While
going, deceased told her father to arrange for the money
otherwise her in laws would not allow her to live.
- > D
Since Yudhishter Singh (PW5) could not arrange money,
Manju had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous
substance. On receiving information on 26.5.1991, Yudhishter
Singh (PW5) alongwith Sarpanch-Mitter Pal and Head
Constable Rohtas Singh (PW3) met Sl-Ramji Lal (PW8) at the
E
bus stand of Ateli and Yudhishter Singh (PW5) made the above
said statement which formed the basis for registering the formal
FIR. Investigation was undertaken.
-~
'
After investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed.
Since the accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. The F
prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of Yudhishter
Singh (PW5) father of the deceased and Lajwant (PW6) mother
of the deceased and Sunil Kumar (PW?) brother of the
deceased. The trial court found that this was a case of suicide
1, and little physical contact between the accused and the G
deceased was the primary reason. It was noted that the
accused was pursuing studies till 13th May, 1991, and thereafter
he returned home. Finding the prosecution version to be
suspect, the trial court directed acquittal. As noted above State
preferred an appeal. It was the primary stand that some thing H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A must have happened otherwise the victim would not have
committed suicide and the fact that the accused and the
deceased could not have any sexual relationship was an
additional ground for suicide. The High Court found that the
evidence of Sunil Kumar (PW7) the brother of the deceased
B conclusively established the accusations and accordingly set
aside the order of acquittal and recorded conviction.
'
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the ~

appellant submitted that the High Court has not even discussed
c the conclusions of the trial court in the proper perspective and
even no reason was indicated as to why the High Court differed
with the view of the trial court. The allegation of dowry demand
was not stc:ited during investigation and lot of improvements
were made in court for the first time. It is in essence submitted
that considering the limited scope for interference with the
D judgment of acquittal, the High Court should not have interfered ..( -
with the judgment of the trial court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment of the High Court submitting that
E the High Court has rightly analysed the evidence of PWs 5, 6
& 7 which was casually done by the trial court.

5. The parameters for dealing with an appeal against
judgment of acquittal have been laid down by this Court in I- I

several cases.
F
6. It would be appropriate to consider and clarify the legal
position first. Chapter XXIX (Sections 372-394) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code") deals with appeals. Section 372 expressly declares that
G no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal ~

court except as provided by the Code or by any other law for """
the time being in force. Section 373 provides for filing of
appeals in certain cases. Section 374 allows appeals from
convictions. Section 375 bars appeals in cases where the
H accused pleads guilty. Likewise, no appeal is maintainable in
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 991
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
petty cases (Section 376). Section 377 permits appeals by the A
State for enhancement of sentence. Section 378 confers power
on the State to present an appeal to the High Court from an
order of acquittal. The said section is material and may be
quoted in extenso:
B
"378. Appeal in case of acquittal.-(1) Save as otherwise
provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions
of sub-sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in
any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order
of acquittal passed ,by any court other than a High Court,
c
or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in
revision.

(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in
which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi D
·- :.. Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or
by any other agency empowered to make investigation
into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code,
the Central Government may also direct the Public E
Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions
of sub-section (3), to the High Court from the order of
acquittal.
-~
(3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall
F
be entertained except with the leave 'of the High Court.

(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case
instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an
application made to it by the complainant in this behalf,
grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, G
~
the complainant may present such an appeal to the High
Court.

(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of
special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months,
where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days
in every other case, computed from the date of that order
of, acquittal.

(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for
B
the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of
acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal
shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).

7. Whereas Sections 379-380 cover special cases of
c appeals, other sections lay down procedure to be followed by
appellate courts.

· 8. It may be stated that more or less similar provisions
were found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
D (hereinafter referred to as "the old Code") which came up for
consideration before various High Courts, Judicial Committee
.( -
of the Privy Council as also before this Court. Since in the
present appeal, we have been called upon to decide the ambit
and- scope of the power of an appellate court in an appeal
against an order of acquittal, we have confined ourselves to one
E
aspect only i.e. an appeal against an order of acquittal.

9. Bare reading of Section 378 of the Code (appeal in
case of acquittal) quoted above, makes it clear that no t-
restrictions have been imposed by the legislature on the
F powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals against
acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full
power to reappreciate, 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
G questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the ~
High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal.

10. It cannot, however, be forgotten that 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
H
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 993
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"!
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every A
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 but reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court. B
11. Though the above principles are well established, a
different note was struck in several decisions by various High
Courts and even by this Court. It is, therefore, appropriate if we
consider some of the leading decisions on the point.
c
12. The first important decision was rendered by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Shea Swarup v. R.
Emperor [(1934) 61 IA 398)]. In Sheo Swarup, the accused
were acquitted by the trial court and the local Government
- ),
directed the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High D
Court from an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the old
Code, (similar to Section 378 of the Code). At the time of
hearing of appeal before the High Court, it was contended on
behalf of the accused that in an appeal from an order of
acquittal, it was not open to the appellate court to interfere with E
the findings of fact recorded by the trial Judge unless such
findings could not have been reached by him had there not been
some perversity or incompetence on his part. The High Court,
-· however, declined to accept the said view. It held that no
condition was imposed on the High Court in such appeal. It F
accordingly reviewed all the evidence in the case and having
formed an opinion of its weight and reliability different from that
of the trial Judge, recorded an order of conviction. A petition
was presented to His Majesty in Council for leave to appeal
, on the ground that conflicting views had been expressed by the Gv

- ~ High Courts in different parts of India upon the question whether
in an appeal from an order of acquittal, an appellate court had
the power to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the
trial Judge. Their Lordships thought it fit to clarify the legal
• position and accordingly upon the "humble advice of their
H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

Y'
A Lordships'', leave was granted by His Majesty. The case was,
thereafter, argued. The Committee considered the scheme and
interpreting Section 417 of the Code (old Code) observed that
there was no indication in the Code of any limitation or
restriction on the High Court in exercise of powers as an
B Appellate Tribunal. The Code also made no distinction as
regards powers of the High Court in dealing with an appeal
against acquittal and an appeal against conviction. Though
several authorities were cited revealing different views by the
High Courts dealing with an appeal from an order of acquittal,
c the Committee did not think it proper to discuss all the cases.
13. Lord Russel summed up the legal position thus:

"There is, in their opinion, no foundation for the view,
apparently supported by the judgments of some courts in
D India, that the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to
reverse an order of acquittal on a matter of fact, except in
.-
cases in which the lower court has 'obstinately blundered',
or has 'through incompetence, stupidity or perversity'
reached such 'distorted conclusions as to produce a
E positive miscarriage of justice', or has in some other way
so conducted or misconducted itself as to produce a
glaring miscarriage of justice, or has been tricked by the
defence so as to produce a similar result."
t-
14. His Lordship, then proceeded to observe: (IA p.404)
F
"Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High
Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the
conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal
G should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon
that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the
'f-
,.
Code."

15. The Committee, however, cautioned appellate courts
and stated: (IA p.404) •
H
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 995
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
y
"But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and A
before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court
should and will always give proper weight and
consideration to such matters as ( 1) the views of the trial
Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a B
presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has
been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to
the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an
appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by
a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. c
To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court
in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in
accordance with rules and principles well known and
recognised in the administration of justice."

- ). (emphasis supplied) D

16. In Nur Mohd. v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 151), the
Committee reiterated the above view in Sheo Swarup (Supra)
and held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has
full powers to review and to reverse acquittal. E

17. So far as this Court is concerned, probably the first
decision on the point was Prandas v. State (AIR 1954 SC 36)
-t (though the case was decided on 14-3-1950, it was reported
only in 1954). In that case, the accused was acquitted by the
trial court. The Provincial Government preferred an appeal F
which was allowed and the accused was convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The High Court,
for convicting the accused, placed reliance on certain
eyewitnesses.
·~
G
~
'~ 18. Upholding the decision of the High Court and following
the proposition of law in Sheo Swarup (supra), a six-Judge
Bench held as follows:

• "6. It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

~
A support the view which has been expressed in several
cases that the High Court has no power under Section
417, Criminal Procedure Code, to reverse a judgment of
acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the
subordinate court has in some way or other misdirected
B itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice."

(emphasis supplied)
;.
19. In Surajpal Singh v. State (1952 SCR 193), a two-
Judge Bench observed that it was well established that in an
c appeal under Section 417 of the (old) Code, the High Court
had full power to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal was founded. But it was equally well settled that the
presumption of innocence of the accused was further reinforced
by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court
D which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing ~ -
their evidence could be reversed only for very substantial and
compelling reasons.

20. In Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab (1953 SCR 418)
the accused was acquitted by the trial court but was convicted
E
by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal filed by the
State. The aggrieved accused approached this Court. It was
contended by him that there were "no compelling reasons" for
setting aside the order of acquittal and due and proper weight t-
had not been given by the High Court to the opinion of the trial
F court as regards the credibility of witnesses seen and
examined. It was also commented that the High Court
committed an error of law in observing that "when a strong
'prima facie' case is made out against an accused person it
is his duty to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence
G against him and he cannot take shelter behind the presumption ,..
~
_,
of innocence and cannot state that the law entitles him to keep
his lips sealed".

21. Upholding the contention, this Court said:
H •
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 997
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

~ "We think this criticism is well founded. After an order of A
acquittal has been made the presumption of innocence is
further reinforced by that order, and that being so, the trial
court's decision can be reversed not on the ground that
the accused had failed to explain the circumstances
appearing against him but only for very substantial and B
compelling reasons."

(emphasis supplied)

22. In Atley v. State of U.P. (AIR 1955 SC 807) this Court
said: c
"In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the
appellate court in an appeal under Section 417, Criminal·
Procedure Code came to the conclusion that the judgment
of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set D
- ). aside that order.

It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the
High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to
review the entire evidence and to come to its own
-- conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established
rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is
E

not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of
·- _, acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage
of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence
have been recorded in its presence. F

It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide
powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against
an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against
an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the G
',...
-
-4: presumption of innocence with which the accused person
starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate
stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight
to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order
.. of acquittal.
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those y
principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the
judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated."

(emphasis supplied)
B 23. In Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra [(1955) 2
SCR 1285)] the accused was prosecuted under Sections 302
and 447 IPC. He was acquitted by the trial court but convicted
by the High Court. Dealing with the power of the High Court
against an order of acquittal, Bose, J. speaking for the majority
c (2:1) stated: (para 1)

"It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not enough for
the High Court to take ·a different view of the evidence;
there must also be substantial and compelling reasons
D for holding that the trial courl was wrong."

(emphasis supplied)
... -

24. In Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1961) 3 SCR
120, a three-Judge Bench considered almost all leading
E decisions on the point and observed that there was no difficulty
in applying the principles laid down by the Privy Council and ---
accepted by the Supreme Court. The Court, however, noted that
appellate courts found considerable difficulty in understanding
the scope of the words "substantial and compelling reasons" 1·
F used in certain decisions. It was observed inter-alia as follows:
"This Court obviously did not and could not add a condition
to Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
words were intended to convey the idea that an appellate
court not only shall bear in mind the principles laid down
G by the Privy Council but also must give its clear reasons ~

for coming to the conclusion that the order of acquittal was
wrong."
;Jo-
-
The Court concluded as follows:
H •
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 999
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
,.., "9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results: A
( 1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the
principles laid down in Shea Swarup case afford a correct
guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in
disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different B
phraseology used ·in the judgments of this Court, such as,
(i) 'substantial and compelling reasons', (ii) 'good and
sufficiently cogent reasons', and (iii) 'strong reasons' are
not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire c
evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing
so it should not only consider every matter on record having
a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given
by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its
arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also
D
. ).
express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold ·
that the acquittal was not justified."

25. Again, in M. G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963)
2 SCR 405, the point was raised before a Constitution Bench
of this Court. Taking note of earlier decisions, it was observed E
as follows:

"17. In some of the earlier decisions of this Court,
·i however, in emphasising the importance of adopting a
cautious approach in dealing with appeals against F
acquittals, it was observed that the presumption of
innocence is reinforced by the order of acquittal and so,
'the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of
seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be
reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons':
G
vide Surajpal Singh v. State (1952 SCR 193). Similarly
"""~
·~·
in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab (1953 SCR 418), it was .
observed that the interference of the High Court in an
appeal against the order of acquittal would be justified only
if there are 'very substantial and compelling reasons to do
t H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A so'. In some other decisions, it has been stated that an y
order of acquittal can be reversed only for 'good and
sufficiently cogent reasons' or for 'strong reasons'. In
appreciating the effect of these observations, it must be
remembered that these observations were not intended to
B lay down a rigid or inflexible ru!e which should govern the
decision of the High Court in appeals against acquittals.
They were not intended, and should not be read to have
intended to introduce an additional condition in clause (a)
of Section 423(1) of the Code. All that the said
c observations are intended to emphasize is that the
approach of the High Court in dealing with an appeal
against acquittal ought to be cautious because as Lord
Russell observed in Sheo Swarup the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused 'is not certainly
weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his
D
trial'. Therefore, the test suggested by the expression
A -
'substantial and compelling reasons' should not be
construed as a formula which has to be rigidly applied in
every case. That is the effect of the recent decisions of this
Court, for instance, in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan
E and Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (1962 Supp 1
SCR 104) and so, it is not necessary that before reversing
a judgment of acquittal, the High Court must necessarily
characterise the findings recorded therein as perverse."
t -
F (emphasis supplied)

26. Yet in another leading decision in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793) this Court
held that in India, there is no jurisdictional limitation on the ~

powers of appellate court. "In law there are no fetters on the
G
plenary power of the appellate court to review the whole
~
evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and, indeed,
it has a duty to scrutinise the probative material de novo,
informed, however, by the weighty thought that the rebuttable
innocence attributed to the accused having been converted into
H J
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 1001
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
an acquittal the homage our jurisprudence owes to individual A
liberty constrains the higher court not to upset the holding
• without very convincing reasons and comprehensive -
consideration."

27. Putting emphasis on balance between importance of
8
individual liberty and evil of acquitting guilty persons, this Court
observed as follows:
~
· "6. Even at this stage we may remind ourselves of a
necessary social perspective in criminal cases which
suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers c
of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at .
the expense of social defence and to the soothing
sentiment that all acquittals are always· good regardless
of justice to the victim and the community, demand
especial emphasis in the contemporary context of D
- ,.I.. escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has
a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden·
thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs thro'
the web of our law should not be· stretched morbidly to
~-

; embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The E
excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a
thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall
not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts
"" - + belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of
justice will then breakdown and lose credibility with the F
community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-
-<: heartedly, as a learned author (Glanville Williams in Proof
' of Guilt) has saliently observed, goes much beyond the
simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished.
·f If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead
G
..I to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to
a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against
-·- indicted 'persons' and more severe punishment of those
who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the ,_
guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons ...,--
it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that 'a miscarriage
of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less
than from the conviction of the innocent.. ..' In short, our
jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must
B be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal
justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck
between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to
set the delinquent free and chopping the logic of
preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents."
.
c (emphasis supplied)

28. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P (1979) 1 SCC 355,
the Court was considering the power of the High Court against ·
an order of acquittal under Section 378 of the Code. After
D considering the relevant decisions on the point it was stated
as follows: A ~

,_
"9. The principles are now well settled. At one time it was
thought that an order of acquittal could be set aside for
'substantial and compelling reasons' only and courts used
.E
to launch on a search to discover those 'substantial and .

.
compelling reasons'. However, the 'formulae' of
'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and
sufficiently cogent reasons' and 'strong reasons' and the -
~

search for them were abandoned as a result of the
F pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (1961) 3 SCR 120. In Sanwat Singh case this
Court harked back to the principles enunciated by the Privy
Council .in Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor and reaffirmed
those principles. After Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan ,..
G this Court has consistently recognised the right of the
· appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come ...
to its own conclusion bearing in mind the considerations
mentioned by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup case.
Occasionally phrases like 'manifestly illegal', 'grossly
H unjust', have been used to describe the orders of acquittal
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 1003
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
which warrant interference. But, such expressions have A
been used more as flourishes of language, to emphasise ·
the reluctance of the appellate court to interfere with an
order of acquittal than to curtail the power of the appellate
court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own
conclusion. In some cases (Ramaphupala Reddy v. State B
of A.P., (AIR 1971 SC 460) Bhim Singh Rup Singh v.
State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 286), it has.been said
that to the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh case may
be added the further principle that 'if two reasonable ,
conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence c
on record, the appellate
. t- .
court_should
·' • • -
nqt disturb
'
the finding ,- -
of the trial court'. This, of course, is not a new principle. It
· stems out of the furidamentai. principle· of our criminal
jurisprudence that the accusecds entitle(! to the benefit of
any reasonable doubt. If two 'rE!asonably probable and
0
eveniy balanced views of the evidence are possible, one
must necessarily concede the existence of a .reasonable
doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left
out of account. To entitle an accused person fo the benefit
of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, E
the possible view in favour of the accused must be as
nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the
preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare
possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to
claim the benefit of any doubt.' It is, therefore, essential
that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused F
must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of
which an accused person may claim, must be
reasonable."

(emphasis supplied) G

29. In Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996)
9 SCC 225, this Court said:
"W.hile sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate
court is first required to seek an answer to the question H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 6 S.C.R.

A whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, y

manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the
-· appellate court answers the above question in the negative
the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if
the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that ·
B the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of
any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only-
reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions."

30. In AHarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) 3
SCC 57, referring to earlier decisions, the Court stated:
c
"7. The paramount consideration of the court should be to
avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which
may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from
the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial court
D has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis
.J
and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High ~

Court to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal. for
the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused
has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by
E the trial court which may not be disturbed in the appeal is
such a view which is based upon legal and admissible
evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted
by the trial court, cannot be made a basis to urge that the
High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such 1-
F a finding."

31. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85,
the trial court acquitted the accused but the High Court
convicted them. Negativing the contention of the appellants that
the High Court could not have disturbed the findings of fact of
G the trial court even if that view was not correct, this Court
observed:
;!

"7. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants that under Section 378 of the
H Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court could not
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 1005
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
--y
disturb the finding of fqcts of the trial court even if it found A
that the view taken by the trial court was not proper. On .·
.~r
the basis of the pronouncements of this Court, the settled
position of law regarding the powers of the High Court in
an appeal against an order of acquittal is that the Court
has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order B
of acquittal is based and generally it will not interfere with
the order of acquittal because by passing an order of
~-
acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused is reinforced. The golden thread which runs
through the web of administration of justice in criminal case c
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 should be adopted. Such is not a jurisdiction
limitation on the appellate court but judge-made guidelines D
... ).. for circumspection. The paramount consideration of the
court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. A
miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal
of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken a view
E
ignoring the admissible evidence, a duty is cast upon the
High Court to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal
appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether all
- ,. or any of the accused has committed any offence or not".

32. In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court F
of AP. (2002) 6 SCC 470, this Court said:

"12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an
order of acquittal or conviction as a court of first appeal
has full power to review the evidence to reach its own G
')., independent conclusion. However, it will not interfere with
an order of acquittal lightly or merely because one other "

view is possible, because with the passing of an order of
acquittal presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused gets reinforced and strengthened. The High Court
H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

..
A would not be j1,1stified to interfere with order of acquittal
merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court it would
have proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on
the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to
examine and discuss the reasons given by the trial court
B to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If
the High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment
will suffer from serious infirmity."
-;.
33. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12
SCC 606, this Court observed:
c
"21. 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 innocence of the accused is
D further strengthened by acquittal. 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
E . favourable to the accused 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
-f -
than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where
F admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the
appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case
where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of
ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed
any offence or not".

,, G 34. Again in Kallu v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, ~

)<
"'
this Court stated: ·.,.

"8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power
. of the appellate court is no less than the power exercised
H while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
-~ :J . NEPAL SINGH~it. STATE OF HARYANA 1007
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

v ' appeafs; the power exists to review the entire evidence. A
. , However, one significant difference is that an order of
acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court,
, , where the judgment of the trial ~curt is based on evidence
and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not
reverse the. dec[sion of the trial court merely because a B
different view is possible. The appellate court will also
'. bear in mind that there is a presumption· of innocence in
' · favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get
" ',,the benefit· of any· doubt.· Further if it decides to interfere,
t,, • ''it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of c
' the 't'ria/ court." '' . '
_}..,.

. (emphasis supplied)

35. From the above decisions, in Chandrappa and Ors.
~- ).., v. State of Kamataka (2007 (4) SCC 415), the following general D
principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal were culled out:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
' ' reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
E
which the order of acquittal is founded. ·
. '
' '
r" ' ' '·'\ ' ' .
, (2) "' The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
-~ , limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
"
~I • .... such power and an appellate court on the evidence
' i... ' ~ .. before it may reach its own conclusion, both on F
c ,. 1 questions of fact and of law..

(3) Various expr~ssions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds",

.......
-. Jo,
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring. mistakes", etc. are not intended-to curtail
G

' ,~ ,. 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
'H
10013 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

r
A acquittal than to curtail 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
B
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed tb be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
c law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed anq strengthened by the trial
court.
"
D (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
A ·-
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court.
~
36. A person has. no doubt. a profound right not to be
E
con•ticted of an offence which is not established by the
evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though
this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no
absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to -t -
"pro::if' is an exercise particular to each case. Referring to the
F interdependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece
of evidence by another, a learned author says [see "The
Matl1ematics of Proof II": Glanville Williams, Criminal Law
Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p.340 (342)]:

G "The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the ~ .
....
" ,·
separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events
are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the
1

1
.-..
evidence of such events may also be said to be
dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence
H directed to establishing that the defendant did the i
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 1009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

prohibited act with the specified state of rnind are generally A
dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an
alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from
the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is
generally guilty rather than innocent people who make
confessions, and guilty rather than innocent people who run B
away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The
one piece of evidence may confirm the other."

37. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from
a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite
other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free C
from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and
substanti~I doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising
from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere
vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary,
- ;., trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon D
reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence
in the case.

38. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it,
• cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be E
mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units
constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an
\ --Ir 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 F
sense and, ultimately, on the 1 trained intuitions of the Judge.
While the protection given by the 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. This position was G
illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then
~ was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (1988 (4) SCC 302).

39. The above position was highlighted in Krishnan and
Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2003 (7) SCC
56). H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009).6 S.C.R.

A 40. F'W5 had gone to the Police Station at Ateli at about
9.50 P.M. on 25.5.1991 to lodge the report regarding the death
of the deceased. The father of the appellant had already sent .
one Dharam Pal for giving intimation of the death to her parents.
PW5 admitted that at the time of marriage Nepal Singh was
B studying .n MA Class in Delhi and after doing M.A. he had gone
to Ahmadabad to undergo some training. He accepted that the
deceased had told him that the accused had returned from
Ahmedaoad on 13.5.1991 after compl~ting his course. It has
also been admitted by PW5 that he did not send any amount
c to Nepal Singh while he was prosecuting studies at
Ahmedabad'. 11n the FIR PW had stated that he had told that he
would a,Tange money. After the marriage on 23.5.1991 victim
went back to village Kanti with her brother Sunil Kumar (PW7)
and while going back she told her father that if money was not
D arranged the accus'ed and his family members will not allow her
to breathe.
l

41 . During cross-examination he accepted that all this was
oot stated during investigation. He also accepted that it was
not mentioned in the FIR that gifts and other articles were given
E as dowry. He accepted that his father in law Udai Singh had
settled the marriage between the accused and the deceased.
Interestingly Udai Singh (DW1) has stated that there was no
-
demarid from the side of the accused at the time of marriage. 1· - I
The doceased and her parents had never complained to him
F that the a~cused or any member of his family was raising any
demand of any kind when confronted with the statement made
durin~1 investigation, PW5 accepted that he had not stated
many vital things during investigation which for the first time he
was speaking in Court. Similar is the position with PW7 the
G brother 'of the deceased. He also accepted on being:
confronte'Ct with the statement made during investigation that he ·
had not ~tated particularly certain relevant aspects. Similar is .
the position with the evidence of mother of deceased (PW6).

42. As was rightly noted by the tri~I court there was no
H
NEPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 1011
[DR. ARIJlTPASAYAfJ.]

-
. evidence towards the claim regarding any demand of dowry. A
That being so the High Court ought not to have interfered with
the well reasoned judgment of the tri~I court directing acquittal.
The reasoning of the High Court that something must have
happened and otherwise deceased would not have committed
suicide is clearly indefensible. That certainly could not have B
·i
been a- reason
acquittal.
. .. ' to set
' .
aside
.. . the
. '( ·"' trial .
Court's
....
judgment of ~ ) . ~

. .....· ·

43. The appeal is allowed. The bail bonds executed with
effect to the order of bail dated 18.th May, 2002 and subsequent C
,date shall stand discharged. •. ··' _ · .,

G.N. Appeal
' i _ .
allowed.
. ,.

·-
..·id.· ~~ .. ,•. 1 !:ro .L ·q
·" .,
. , '·I ) f .., O~j:· ..rip ~it~", -i,·t f1'
'f•'

.' . l ' ' • ~l

,-r . ' \ .. I• /·~. t
.•

.. ,,p· j .j

'~i, -~l..f I ) \ .
1
i••·

. '·
; _.,.. 4 !. • \,r i , ':t .~ ' . . ~ .. lJ •

/I·.,;. ~ • I ' ~ . ~ • ..... ~- t 11;

L.