Holding

An appellate court may re‑appreciate the evidence underlying an acquittal and set it aside if the judgment is unreasonable and material evidence has been unjustifiably ignored.

Summary

The case involved four accused who, during a robbery on a train in 1994, stabbed one passenger to death and shot another. Eye‑witnesses, who were the victim’s siblings, identified the accused in court, leading to conviction by the trial court. The High Court acquitted them on the ground that no test identification parade had been held and the accused, having refused to participate, could not challenge the identification. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court is not barred from re‑appreciating the evidence on which an acquittal is based and may set aside such a judgment if it is unreasonable or material evidence has been ignored. The Court found that the High Court had ignored the eyewitness testimony and therefore its acquittal was unsustainable. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, the convictions reinstated and the accused ordered to surrender. The decision underscores the paramount need to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Issues considered

Whether an appellate court can review the evidence on which an order of acquittal is based
Whether the absence of a test identification parade, coupled with the accused’s refusal to participate, bars the accused from challenging identification in court
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of alleged identification deficiencies

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Constitution of Indias. 136
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 394, s. 397

Subjects

robberymurderattempted murderidentification paradeappellate reviewacquittalmiscarriage of justiceevidence appraisalIndian Penal Codecriminal procedure

Judgment

STATE OF HARYANA A
v.
SURENDER AND ORS. ETC.

JUNE 1, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B

Penal Code, I 860:

ss.302,394 rlw 397-Robbery-Accused stabbing one victim to death
and injuring another by firing gunshot at him-Accused identified in court C
by injured witness-Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court for·
not holding test identification parade-Held: Accused having denied to
participate in test identification parade, cannot make a grievance about
identification in Court-Acquittal by High Court set aside-Test identification
parade. D
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Appeal against acquittal-Re-appreciation of evidence-Held: There
is no embargo on appellate court to reviewing the evidence upon which
I
order of acquittal was based-If judgement under appeal is clearly E
unreasonable, and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably
ignored, it is a compelling reason for interference-Constitution of Jndia-
1

Art 136.

The four respondents in the instant three appeals, were prosecuted for
committing offences punishable under ss.302 and 394 read with s.397 IPt. ·F
The prosecution case was that in running train they, while committing
robbery, killed one person by stabbing and injured his younger brother by
firing a gunshot at him. The eye-witnesses namely, PWs 13 and 14, younger
brother and sister of the deceased respectively, who were travelling with him,
identified the accused in the court. The trial court convicted all the four
accused of the offences charged and sentenced each of them accordingly. 'In G
the appeal filed by the accused, it was mainly pleaded that as no test
identification parade was held, the identification for the first time in the court
was of no consequence. The High Court did not accept the contention of the
State that accused having refused to participate in test identification parade
885 H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A could not take advantage of their own lapse, and acquitted the accused.
Aggrieved, the State filed the instant appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the
B evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. The paramount
consideration of the <;ourt is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is
prevented. In a case, where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is caste
upon the appellate 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 appellate
C Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interface
only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the
impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, and relevant and convincing
materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling
reason for interference. [Fara 7] [889-F-H; 890-A]
D
Bhagwan Singh and ors. v. State ofMP., (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 ofHaryana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
Bihar & Ors., (2003} 7 Supreme 52; State ofPunjab v. Karnai/ Singh, (2003)
E 5 Supreme 508; State ofPunjab v. Poh/a Singh and Anr., (2003) 7 Supreme
17 and V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kera/a, [2006) 10 SCC 617, relied on.

1.2. On a perusal of the High Court's order it is crystal clear that the
same is clearly unsustainable. The evidence of the eye-witnesses, i.e. PW 13
and PW 14, has not been discussed by the High Court. Both are injured
F witnesses. The High Court did not indicate any reason as to why it discarded
the plea of the State that the accused persons having denied to participate in
the TI parade cannot make a grievance about identification in Court. The
High Court has even not discarded the stand of the State as to why the plea
relating to TI parade cannot be raise~ by the accused. The judgment of the
G High Court is clearly unsustainable and is, therefore, set aside.
(Para 6 and 8) [888-H; 889-A-B; 890-D)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 618-620
of2001.

H From the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2000 of the High Court
:r
STATEOFHARYANAv. SURENDER(PASAYAT,J.] 887

of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 36 DB of 1996, A
186 DB of 1996 and 245 DB of 1996.

Roopansh Purohit (for T.V. George) for the Appellant.

Dhiraj (for P.N. Puri) and Shipra Ghose forthe Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J l. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing
acquittal of the respondents who were found guilty of offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, C
1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and 10
years respectively.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as ·under:

On l.2.1994 Sushila Devi (PW-14) along with her brothers Purshotam D
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and Yashbir (PW-13) boarded a train at
Sakurbasti (Delhi) at 6.30 p.m. for coming to Rohtak for treatment ofYashbir
in Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. When the train was in motion
between Railway Stations Dehkora and Sampla, four unidentified and unknown
persons description of whom were given in the report Ex./PD/l allegedly
entered into the compartment where deceased along with Yashbir and Sushila E
Devi was sitting and one of the assailants stood near deceased and shouted
to take out whatever they had in their possession. Deceased-Purshotam
asked him to wait. Meanwhile the said youngman again shouted asking
Purshotam to hand over money and when Purshotam was in the process of
handing over the money, the youngman with one hand snatched the money p
and gave a knife blow to the deceased in his abdomen. On receipt of the
injury, Purshotam fell down. Yashbir (PW-13) who was sitting by the side of
Purshotam got up and proceeded towards that man and was able to caught
hold of his hand in which he was having a knife. The other appellant fired
a shot from the pistol hitting Yashbir (PW-13). Some of the pellets also hit
another passenger Ashok Kumar. When the train slowed down near Sampla G
Railway Station, both the persons who had caused injuries and the other two
accused persons got down from the compartment and fled away. With the
help of Sajjan Singh (PW-3), both Purshotam and Yashbir injured were taken
to Civil Health Centre, Sampla and then to Medical College and Hospital,
Rohtak. However, Purshotam succumbed to the injuries on the way to M.C.H. H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A Rohtak. Udey Raj (PW-2), Assistant Station Master received a telephonic
message from Control Room Delhi, with regard to the firing incident. He sent
message (Ex.PA) to Station House Officer, Police Station, Government Railway
Police, Rohtak. When the train reached Railway Station, Rohtak, police officials
were deputed to guard the compartment.. SI Manohar Lal (PW-11), recorded
the statement of Sushila Devi (Ex.PB/I) on L2. l 984 at Medical College and
B Hospital, Rohtak and making his endorsement Ex.PB/2 he sent the same to the
police station for registration of a case and on its basis formal FIR (Ex.PB/
2) was recorded. SI Manohar Lal, (PW-I I) then went to Railway Station,
Rohtak and inspected the compartment. He took into possession blood,
pellets and empty cartridge from the compartment vide memos Ex.PR and PR/
C 1. He also prepared inquest report (Ex.PU), and took into possession the
clothes of the deceased and Yashbir (PW-13), vide recovery memos Ex.PN and
PM respectively. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion
of investigation charge sheet was placed and since accused persons claimed
trial, they were put to trial. ·on the basis of the evidence on record, more
particularly, identification by eye-witnesses (PWs. 13/14) the trial Court
D recorded conv~ction and imposed sentences as noted supra.

3. The conviction as recorded by the Trial Court was questioned in
r
three appeals filed by the respondents. In the appeal the primary stand taken
was that there was variance in evidence as to the role played by the accused
E persons. Additionally, it was urged that no test identification parade was held
and, therefore; the identification for the first time in the Court was of no
consequence.

4. In response, learned counsel for the State pointed out that the
accused persons themselves declined to take part or to be put in the test
F identification parade for the purpose of identification. The High Court brushed
aside the stand of the State and as noted above directed acquittal. . ~-

5. In support of. the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant stated
tha~ the accused persons cannot take advantage of their own lapse. When
they were asked to take part in test identification parade they refused to
G participate. That being so, the High Court has not indicated any reason as
to how the same was of any help to the accused and High Court has wrongly
drawn adverse inference.
I ,....
6. On a perusal of the High Court's order it is crystal clear that the same
is clearly unsustainable. The evidence of the eye-witnesses i.e Yashbir (PW-
H
\
)'

STATEOFHARYANAv. SURENDER[PASAYAT,J.] 889
13) and Sushila (PW-14) has not been discussed. Both are injured witnesses. A
The High Court did not indicate any reason as to why it discarded the plea
of the State that the accused persons having denied to participate in the TI
parade cannot make a grievance about identification in Court. The High Court
has even not discarded the stand of the State as to why the plea relating to
TI parade cannot be raised by the accused. The only reason indicated by
the High Court for directing acquittal reads as follows: B
"The argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General, has been
that once the assailants refused to join the identification parade, there
would. be a presumption that they themselves were involved and none
else. The Court cannot feel complacent and convinced because one C
person has lost life and other escaped death, about the participation
of certain persons named by the police in a crime unless they are
connected with the commission of the crime undoubtedly without the
least shadow of doubt. As already discussed above when the
identification of the appellants has taken place in Court after about
two years of the occurrence for the first time and the statements of D
the witnesses of the occurrence are contrary to the recoveries· of
weapons from the appellants, it would not be safe to sustain the
conviction of the appellants which may result into miscarriage of
justice. Hence, it is sufficient to say that the appellants deserve the
benefit of doubt. The appeals filed by the appellants are allowed and E
the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them."

7. 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 further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs F
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 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 G
the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored,
a duty is cast upon the appellate 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. [See Bhagwan Singh
and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 2 Supreme 567. The principle to H

).
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment
of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial
reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and
relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the
process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were
highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of
B 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 Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State
of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of Punjab v. Pohla
Singh and Anr., (2003) 7 Supreme 17 and V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kera/a,
c [2006] 10 sec 611.

8. Above being the pos1tion, the High Court's judgment is clearly
unsustainable and is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The accused shall
forthwith surrender to custody to serve remainder of the sentence.

D R.P. Appeals allowed.

r ,

r

j:::
-1-