Holding

The appeals are dismissed; the High Court's acquittal stands as there were no compelling reasons to interfere.

Summary

The State of Haryana appealed the acquittal of Shibu alias Shiv Narain and two others who were charged with murder of Vijay under IPC s.302, s.34. The trial court had convicted them, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted, holding that the alleged eye‑witnesses were not present and that the prosecution’s version was implausible. The Supreme Court examined the standard of review for judgments of acquittal, reiterating that an appellate court may interfere only on compelling and substantial reasons and when the impugned judgment is unreasonable or material evidence has been unjustifiably ignored. It found that the High Court had undertaken a detailed analysis, concluded the prosecution case lacked credibility, and there was no such compelling reason to disturb the acquittal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, leaving the acquittal intact.

Issues considered

Whether an appellate court can set aside a judgment of acquittal on the basis of its own appraisal of the evidence.
Whether the High Court erred in finding the prosecution’s version of events improbable and the witnesses unreliable.
What standard of review applies to judgments of acquittal under criminal law.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

acquittalappellate reviewIPC 302Section 34evidence appraisalcriminal lawmiscarriage of justiceblind murdereye‑witness testimony

Judgment

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 361

'Y
STATE OF HARYANA A
v.
SHIBU @ SHIV NARAIN AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.235-236 of 2001)
JULY 25, 2008
B
--' ,._ -t [DR. ARlilT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
ALAM, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 rlw s. 34 - Three accused alleged to have attacked c
and killed the victim - Conviction by trial court - Plea before
High Court that it was a blind murder and witnesses were pro-
cured later on - Acquittal by High Court - HELD: Judgment of
acquittal is to be in,terfered with only when there are compel-
1 ling and substantial reasons - High Court has elaborately dis- D
__,,
-<(
cussed the evidence and all aspects and rightly concluded
that prosecution version was highly improbable and lacked
credence - Appeal against acquittal.
The prosecution case against the accused-respon-
dent was that on account of a previous quarrel between E
the, .d~ceased and accused-respondent no.1 in Criminal
Appeal No. 23·5 of 2001, the accused armed with a 'pharsa'
and a sword attacked the deceased. Accused-respondent
no.1 caught hold of the deceased while the other two gave
a sword blow and a 'pharsa' blow on the thigh and leg F
... respectively of the deceased. On hearing cries of the vie-
tim, his brother (PW.5), cousin (PW 6) and another per-
son reached the scene of occurrence. The victim sue-
cumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital. The trial
Court convicted the accused, who was said to have given G
sword blow on the thigh of the deceased, u/s. 302 IPC
. -~
and the other two accused u/s.302 read with 34 IPC. The
case of the accused before the High Court was that it was
a blind murder and the prosecution witnesses were pro-
361 H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A · cured after the incident had come to light. The High Court
acquitted all the accused.
In the instant appeals filed by the State it was con-
tended for the appellant that the accused had a motive
for the crime and the evidence was cogent and credible,
B · but the analysis done by the High Court was without any
foundation and suffered from. serious infirmity. · _,._.... L
r

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The principle to be followed by the ap-
e pel\ate court considering the appeal against the judg-
meli·t of acquittal ·is to interfere only when there are com-
. palling· and substantial reasons for doing so. If the im-
pugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant
and convincing materials have been unjustifiably elimi-
D nated in the process, it is compelling reason for interfer-
ence. [Para 9] (368-C-D]
1.2 The High court has elaborately discussed the ~vi
dence and all the aspects to conclude that the prosecu-
E, tiori version is highly improbable and Jacks credence.
When ·the background facts as noticed by the High Court
are tested on the touchstone of the principles set. out by
this-court it is clear that the appeals· are without me~it.
[Para ·8 and 1O] [367 ·e-F 368-F] ·
~ ·-. .... . • J, t

F" . 8hag~an Singh v. State ofM.P 2002(4) sec 85- relied
I

on [para 9] ' ' I• .

Joseph v. State of Kera/a 2003(1) SCC 465-:- :relied on
[para 9] ·' ·
'1
G . ., .. pe,vatha Venkataswamy v. Public Prosecutor, High· Cour;t
of A:P .200;3(10) sec 700- retied on [par~ ~l, ..
·;:i • Stafo 1 Of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh ·2003(11) ·sec 271-
..,.,. .
relied ofli(para 9] .. ' .
. : -. ~i • - ·. ' ' • . •

State of UP v. Babu 2003(1'1) sec 280 - relied on [para 9]
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHIBU @ SHIV
• y
NARAIN & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
363

Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal 2003(11) SCC 527 - relied A
on [para 9]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTIO~: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 235-236 of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11/7/2000 of B
-.; ,._..,, the High Court ·of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A.
'
• No. 527-DB/1995
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the Appellant.
Naresh Kaushik and Lalita Kaushik for the Respondents. c
Nagendra Rai, Rishi Malhotra and prem Malhotra for the
Complainant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These appeals are directed D
against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab
-<(
& Haryana High Court disposing of appeals i.e. Criminal Ap-
peal No. 52708 of 1995 and 547DB of 1995. The main judg-
ment is in Criminal Appeal No. 527 DB of 1995. In these ap-
peals two appellants were convicted by learned Sessions E
Judge, Rohtak in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1995.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 18th January 1995, at about 8 or 8.30 a.m., Vijay since
deceased, was going from his house towards the bazar for F
.......
shopping and had gone a short distance, when the three ac-
cused Shibu alias Shiv Narain, Surender Singh armed with a
pharsa and Bhagat Singh armed with a sword accosted him
and Shibu told him that they were going to teach him a lesson
forthe slaps that had been given to him on 16th January, 1995. G
Shibu then caught hold of Vijay in his grip, whereas Bhagat
Singh inflicted a sword blow on his left thigh, while Surender
accused aimed a blow on his leg which did not hit its target. On
'"" receipt of the injuries, Vijay cried "Mar diya Mar diya", which
attracted Attar Singh (PW5) and Rajinder (PW6), the brother
H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

.,,
A and·first cousin of deceased respectively, and one lnder to the
place of incident. All the accused then ran away from the spot.
Vijay was, thereafter, taken to his house and then to the Civil
Hospital, Bahadurgarh in a tractor by Attar Singh and some oth-
ers, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way. The dead body
B nevertheless reached the hospital, on which the doctor sent in-
formation vide Ex. PE to the police, which brought ASI Ranbir ~~

Singh to the hospital. He recorded the statement of Attar Singh 'r
Ex.PK at 11.50 a.m. and on its basis, a formal FIR Ex. PK/2
was re.gistered at Police Station, Bahadurgarh at 12.05 p.m.;
c the special report being delivered locally at 12.35 p.m. The SHo,·
Inspector Sumer Singh, also visited the place of occurrence
and made the necessary investigation at the spot. The accused
were arrested on 18th January, 1995 and on their interrogation
and disclosure statements, a pharsa and a sword were recov-
ered. On completion of the investigation, accused Bhagat Singh
D
was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') while the others :....
were charged for the same offence with the aid of Section 34
thereof and as they claimed to be innocent, wer.J brought to
trial.
E
As noted above, PWs 5 & 6 Attar Singh and Rajinder re-
spectively were stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence.
The trial court concluded that the enmity between the parties
stood proved as they had been on opposite sides in the
F panchayat elections and on account of this factor, accused Shibu
had abused Attar Singh sometime earlier and had been given .
~
a beating by him. The court also found that the prosecution ver-
sion as stated by Attar Singh (PW-5) and Rajinder (PW-6) was
natural. Accordingly, the three accused persons were found
guilty, convicted and sentenced as afore-stated.
G
Stand of the appellant before the High Court in the ap-
peals was that the ri1urder was a blind one as the prosecution
witnesses have been pror.ured after the incident had come to
light.
H
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHIBU @ SHIV 365
y NARAIN & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submit- A
ted that not only it was their motive for the killing but the evi-
dence was cogent and credible. The High Court found sub-
stance in the plea of the three accused appellants (respondents
herein) and directed their acquittal.
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the analy- B
... 4'
sis as done by the High Court is without any foundation and
suffers from serious infirmity.
\

5. Learned counsel for the complainant also supported
the stand bf the State. c
6. Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand sub-
mitted that the High Court has highlighted the discrepancies in
evidence and therefore the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
7. The High Court after analyzing the evidence recorded
D
as follows:
·-1
"We are of the opinion that the presence of Attar Singh
PW-5 and Rajinder FW-6 at the spot is difficult to accept.
In D.D.R. No.15 which pertains to the present incident, the
- names of Rajinder & lnder have not been mentioned and E
... the fact as to whether Attar Singh was an eye witness, has
also not been clearly spelt out. Moreover, it appears to us
that the description of the attack given by the two witnesses
also belies their presence for two reasons; firstly, that in
the F.l.R, it has been clearly stated that two injuries had F
been caused to the deceased i.e. one by Bhagat Singh
with a sword and the other by Surender Singh with pharsa.
The post mortem report however, speaks of only one injury
by Bhagat Singh. It was to cover this situation that both
Attar Singh PW-5 and Rajinder PW-6, in the course of
G
{ their statements given in Court, for the first time stated
that though Surender Singh had aimed a pharsa blow on
...,
the left thigh, yet no injury had been caused to the deceased
as, he had, at the crucial time, been able to move-his leg
out of harms way. There is yet another circumstance which
H
I-
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 11 S.C.R.
-..,
A belies the prosecution case and also shows that the L
,.
Investigation has not been fair. In column, 10 of the inquest
report Ex.PL/2 (original Hindi version), it is appar:ent that
a serious interpolation has been made to fit in with the
new story. We find that the presence of the injury on the
B .. ankle allegedly caus.ed by Su render Singh was first noted
j--~
and then by interpolating the word "nahi", the effort has
been made to show that there was no second injury on the
deceased. This interpolation is further evident from the
· fact that an injury which was present would alone find
c mention in the document and not a nega!ive fact that there
was,no injury. The counsel therefore, appears to be right
in placing reliance on Sat Darshan Kalia v State of Punjab
1996 (1) Rece,nt Criminal Reports, 367, in which this
Court his held that where the investigation had not been
'fair and an interpolation had been made in some important
D
document, a serious doubt could be created with regard
to the· integrity of the investigation and the veracity of the
,..
prosecution's story.
There is yet another significant circumstance to show that
E the two eye witnesses had not seen the occurrence. PW
5 Attar Singh had clearly stated in the evidence that a i
sword blow had been inflicted in the thigh of Vijay from the
height of the arm of the assailant Bhagat Singh. Likewise,
Rajinder - PW 6 in his statement had stated that Bhagat
F Singh had inflicted a blow in a thrusting manner. Dr. Manju
Arora PW-4, who had conducted the post mortem
·· examination was cross examined in extenso by the
defence counsel as to the inferences that could be drawn
on the medical evidence and she clearly stated that as the
direction of the injury was from below to upward and as
G
·the attack had been made from "straight front and stabbing, ~~

I
then this injury was not possible while standing. If one tries
y
to cause this injury from sword from upward to downward,
even then, this injury cannot be caused" and further "in the
event of the assailant and the injured standing,·assailant
:H
STATE OF HARYANA v. SHIBU @ SHIV 367
NARAIN & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

has to bend down and take the weapon in such a low A
position, at least from the side of the entry wound, otherwise,
in standing position, this injury cannot be caused". It bears
repetition that Vijay had been in a standing position when
he had been caused the injury by Bhagat Singh. The doctor
has clearly opined that the injury in question could not B
have been caused as the victim and the assailant were
both standing in a normal posture. It can thus, be deduced
from the evidence of the doctor that in this situation, the
· injury could have been found either parallel to the ground
or moving from upward to downward. c
The presence of the eye witnesses is further belied by
another obvious circumstance. As per the prosecution
story, Shibu accused had bEen given a few slaps by Attar
Singh PW-5 after he had abused him on the evening of
16th January,1995. Vijay had not even been present at D
the time when the slaps had been administered. It is,
therefore, obvious that if Shibu bore any malice, it would
have been towards Attar Singh and had he been present
at the spot standing close by witnessing the attack on
Vijay, he would not have been allowed to go scot free and E
unscathed."
8. The High Court has elaborately highlighted the afore-
said aspects to conclude that the prosecution version is highly
improbable and lacks credence.
F
9. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. As a
matter of fact, in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court as
the court of first appeal is obligated to go into greater detail of
the evidence to see whether any miscarriage has resulted from G
the order of acquittal, though it has to act with great cir-
cumspection and utmost care before ordering the reversal of
an acquittal. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be in-
terfered with because the presumption of innocence of the ac-
cused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A which ·runs through the web of administration of justice in crimi-
nal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence ad-
duced 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. The paramount consideration of
B the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevent- ed.
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 court to reappreciate the eviden_ce where the ac-
e cused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertain-ing as
to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or
not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of MP( 2002(4 )SCC 85)
The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering
the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing
0
so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and rel-
evant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably elimi- lt--
nated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.
This position has been reiterated in Joseph v. State of Kera/a
(2003(1) SCC 465), Devatha Venkataswamy v. Public Pros-
E ecutor, High Court of A. P (2003(10) SCC 700), State of Punjab
v. Kamai! Singh (2003 (11) SCC 271), State of UP v. Babu
(2003 (11) sec 280) and Suchand Pal V. Phani Pal (2003 (11)
sec 527).
F 10. When the background facts as noticed by the High
Court are tested on the touchstone of the principles set out
above, it is clear that the appeals are without merit deserve
dismissal, which we direct.
R.P. Appeals dismissed.