Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, holding that the circumstantial evidence was not cogent or reliable and there were no compelling reasons to disturb the order of acquittal.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan appealed the Rajasthan High Court’s acquittal of Naresh, who was charged under Sections 302 and 394 IPC for murdering a woman, amputating her feet, and stealing her jewellery. The trial court had convicted him based on four strands of circumstantial evidence, but the High Court set aside the conviction, finding the evidence unreliable and lacking any eyewitness or forensic corroboration. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s evidence – the alleged presence of the accused at the field, the mud on his hands, the recovery of jewellery and a ‘Khurpi’ without bloodstains – and concluded that none of these facts were cogent or trustworthy enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing precedents on the limited scope of interfering with acquittals, the Court held that where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the view favoring the accused must prevail. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

Issues considered

The adequacy of circumstantial evidence to overturn an acquittal under Sections 302 and 394 IPC.
Whether an appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence.
The evidentiary value of recovered jewellery and the alleged weapon (Khurpi) lacking forensic confirmation.
The requirement of eyewitness or forensic proof for conviction in a murder case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

murdercircumstantial evidenceacquittalappeal against acquittalburden of proofforensic evidenceamputationtheft of jewelleryIndian Penal Codecriminal procedure

Judgment

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 589

STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
V.
NARESH @.RAM NARESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 837 of 2002)

AUGUST 26, 2009 B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
f
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 394 - Murder- Lady
killed and her ornaments taken away- Both legs of deceased
c
amputated - Prosecution case rested on circumstantial
evidence - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court
- Challenge to - Held: Evidence regarding commission of
offence by accused in the field and amputation of legs of
D
deceased neither cogent nor reliable - Recovery of
1
ornaments shrouded in total mystery - Alleged weapon of
offence recovered from open place and did not contain blood
stains - View taken by High Court plausible view, therefore,
benefit must go to accused and not to prosecution - Not a
E
case where evidence led was trustworthy and conclusively
established that accused only committed the offence -
Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, no
scope for interference with order of acquittal - Appeal -
Against acquittal - Scope for interference - Evidence -
F
Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of.

According to the prosecution, the respondent
accused killed a lady and took away her ornaments. It
was alleged that the respondent amputated both legs of
the deceased by use of a "Khurpi" and took away a pair G
.... 11-
of silver anklets of feet, one pair of silver bracelets of
hands, one pair of silver ear-rings and one golden nose-
ring (nath). The entire case of the prosecution rested on
589 H
~1

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 'circumstantial evidence.

The trial court on the basis of the evidence on record
held that the prosecution produced following four types
of circumstantial evidences: (i) the accused was
B examining the palm by way of palmistry, of the deceased
and the deceased went towards the field; (ii) the accused
also went towards the field; (iii) the accused washed his
hands after committing the offence and blood of the ~·
deceased was found at the field and (iv) the accused
c returned from the field smeared with mud, alongwith a
"Potli" in his hand, he was seen going away from the
village, and upon the identification of the accused, the
jewellery of the deceased, which had been removed and
taken away by amputating feet from her body, the same
D were seized and identification proceedings of the
jewellery-items were carried out. The trial court held that
the aforesaid circumstances proved and established that
the respondent had committed the offence and convicted
him under ss.302 and 394 IPC. The High Court, however,
E acquitted the respondent holding that there was no eye-
witness to the occurrence and that none of the
circumstances led to the inference that the respondent
had committed the alleged offence. Hence the present
appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: { An order of acquittal should not be lightly
interfered with even if the court believes that there is
some evidence pointing out the finger towards the
G accused. [Para 18] [602-8]

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (2004) 13 SCC 257;
Chandrappa v. State of Kamataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 and
it
-
State of U.P. v. Gambhir Singh (2005) 11 SCC 271, referred
H to.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM 591
NARESH

2.1. In the present case, none of the circumstances A
relied upon by the prosecution stands proved against the
respondent leading to a definite conclusion that it was he,
who had committed the offence. It has come on evidence
that deceased went towards the field on 12.08.1993 at
about 3 o'clock and that accused also went to the field B
with a "Lotah" in his hand. However, such a statement
appears not to have been made before the police and the
same was found to be an improvement by the High Court
and recorded so in the Judgment. PW-4 has stated in her
deposition that she had gone to the "Kothi" for feeding C
the cattle. She has also stated that when she was sitting
at the field for drinking water to cattle, she saw accused
was running towards the village and that accused was
having a "Gaddi" with him and also one "Gaon". In her
cross-examination, she stated that she had seen the D
accused sitting at the "Kheli" and that she had turned her
back towards accused because accused was washing
his hands. If that witness was present in the field near the
place of occurrence, there was no occasion as to why
she would not have seen the alleg.ed actual occurrence. E
If the accused committed the offence he must have
stayed at the place of occurrence for a very long time as
it is alleged that the accused had amputated feets of the
deceased and a pair of silver anklets of feet, one pair of
silver bracelets of hands, one pair of silver ear-rings and F
one golden nose-ring (nath) were allegedly taken away
by him. When the allegation is that of amputation of both
the feet by use of a "Khurpi" the same must have taken
considerable time during the course of which the said
witness PW-4 would have seen the occurrence itself. G
There is also r{o ex.planation from PW4 as to why she
'"' • turned her back when she saw accused washing his
hands. She does not state that she had seen the
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A deceased with the accused nor does she state that she
had seen the accused smeared with mud. [Para 19] (604-
G-H; 605-A-F]

2.2. There is not even a single statement coming from
B any of the witnesses that they had seen any water being
smeared with blood of the deceased or any soil of the
field being smeared with human blood. Some of the
witnesses have stated that accused was smeared with
mud when he was returning from the field whereas PW-
c 4 does not say so. She only states that she saw him
running from the fields. It is also not known why the said
witness had turned her back towards the accused only
because the accused was washing his hands. If accused
was washing his hands as stated by PW-4 there is no
D likelihood of body of the accused being smeared with
mud as alleged by some of the prosecution witnesses
(PWs 7 & 8). [Para 20] (605-G-H; 606-A-B]

2.3. The trial court also held accused guilty because
E the strap of wristwatch was found near the dead body of
the deceased, which allegedly belong to the accused. On
scrutiny of the evidence, this Court does not find any
such direct evidence that the said strap of wristwatch
belongs to the watch of the accused. None of the
F witnesses stated that such strap of wristwatch belongs
to the accused nor any wristwatch has been recovered
from the accused. So far the time of occurrence is
concerned there is also no unanimity and the evidence
is scanty regarding the time of occurrence.· In the
G considered opinion of this Court, the evidence regarding
commission of...offence by the accused in the field and
also amputation of legs of the deceased is neither cogent
nor reliable, and therefore, those circumstances cannot
)of ..
be relied upon for basing conviction of the respondent.
H ;
,
'

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH @ RAM 593
NARESH
[Para 21] [606-8-D] A
2.4. So far as the circumstance about the recovery
of ornaments is concerned, the star witness in that
regard is PW-20. The said ornaments were recovered at
the instance of accused from the custody and 8
possession of PW-20. PW-20 had stated in his
examination-in-chief that the accused came to him
saying that he wanted to sell the jewellery of his house.
t The said witness, however, stated that they did not
purchase such jewellery, which was, however, seized c
later on from him. He stated in his cross-examination that
they do the business for making new ornaments from the
old ornaments. He also stated that the said jewellery was
not for their use and hence they refused to purchase. He
also stated that accused himself is a goldsmith hence he o
used to come to him earlier also. He also stated that the
accused asked him to keep the jewellery and told that he
would come back soon, and therefore, he kept the said
jewellery and that on the same day accused took away
his ornaments. If the accused' has taken away the E
jewellery on the same day then how could the police
recover the same jewellery from the custody and
possession of PW-20. Besides, since he had stated that
he would not purchase the jewellery there was no
occasion for the accused to keep that jewellery with PW- F
20. In the disclosure statements the accused stated that
he sold the jewellery to Ram Chandra Saraf whereas the
same was recovered from PW-20. On scrutinizing the
evidence, it is found that the aforesaid recovery of
jewellery is shrouded in a total mystery as it was not G
recovered from the place and person to whom allegedly

-- accused sold. [Para 22] [60o-F-H; 607-A-C]

2.5. So far as recovery of "Khurpi" is concerned the
H

--
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A same admittedly did not contain any bloodstains on it
and it was recovered from an open place. Since there was
no bloodstain on it, the police also did not send it for
chemical examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that I;--
'Y-
the said weapon was used for committing murder of the
B deceased. There could be some suspicion regarding the
conduct of the accused at the time of occurrence but the
same cannot in any manner conclusively prove and
j..
establish that the accused has committed the murder of
the deceased. Unless and until the evidence adduced +
c clearly and pointedly establish the guilt of the accused
an order of conviction cannot be passed by setting aside
the order of acquittal. [Para 23] [607-0-F]

3. The view that is taken by the High Court is found
D to be a plausible view, and therefore, the benefit must
always go to the accused and not to the prosecution. If
~
the prosecution wants to prove the fact, the same must
be proved by leading evidence, which is reliable and
trustworthy, which pinpoints and conclusively proves
E the guilt of the accused. This is not a case where one can
safely hold that the evidence led was trustworthy and
conclusively establishes that it is the accused only, who
had committed the offence. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined
).
F to interfere with the order of acquittal. [Para 24] [607-G-
H; 608-A]

Case Law Reference:
(2004) 13 sec 257 referred to Para 18
G
(2001) 4 sec 415 referred to Para 18
(2005) 11 sec 211 referred to Para 18 )( ~

....
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTl9N : Criminal Appeal
H No. 837 of 2002.

-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH @ RAM 595
NARESH

From the Judgment & Order dated 18.7.2001 of the High A
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur in D.S.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 331 of 1996.

Milind Kumar for the Appellant.
B
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
+ DR. MUKUNDAK~M SHARMA, J. 1. This criminal
appeal is filed by the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved by c
the judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court
on 18.07.2001 acquitting the respondent - accused from the
charges under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). The High Court acquitted
the respondent of all the charges by setting aside the judgment D
..., and order of conviction passed against the accused by the trial
court.

2. Before discussing rival contentions of the parties, it
would be necessary to set out certain facts leading to the filing E
of the first information report against the respondent under
Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC.

On 12.08.1993, Khushal Singh (PW-21), who was the then
S.H.O. of the police station, Bassi received an information on F
wireless that someone by killing and also amputating the feet
of a lady has taken away her silver anklets and that her dead
body was lying near village, Kuthada. On receiving the aforesaid
information, the SHO alongwith the police party rushed to the
village, KutHada where Sita Ram S/o Bhagwan Sahai G
submitted a written report, Exhibit P-7, on which he made an
endorsement. On the basis of the aforesaid written report the

-· police registered a case under FIR No. 302 of 1993 under
Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC. On 13.08.2001 after
registration of the said case, police started investigation.
H
"

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 3. During investigation, PW-21 prepared an inquest report
>-- /

of deceased Guli Devi, which is exhibited as Exhibit P-8.
Sumer Singh (PW-19), Circle Officer inspected the site on
13.08.1993 and prepared the site plan. He also took into
possession the blood smeared clothes of the deceased, blood
B smeared soil, a cement piece of floor of kheli having
bloodstains, one strap of wrist watch - Exhibit P-5, one lathi
and one pair of shoe - Exhibit P-6. He also recorded the
statements of Smt. Mulli Devi, Ram Dayal, Gopal, Sanjay, Sita +
Ram, Mathura, Babu Lal, Smt. Chotta, Ramrai, Rameshwar and
c Ganesh under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for
short "the Cr.P .C").

4. The police thereafter went to Uttar Pradesh in search
of accused Naresh and apprehended him in the village Pahadi,
D District Banda (U.P.) and brought and produced him before the
SHO, Bassi, who in turn arrested him. It is alleged that Naresh ,.. ~

on 20.01.1994 gave information, Exhibit P-17, under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act for the recovery of ornaments of
deceased Guli Devi. It is also alleged that on the basis of the
E aforesaid information, PW-17, recovered a pair of silver anklets
of feet, one pair of silver bracelets of hands, one pair of silver
ear-rings and one golden nose-ring (nath) from Ramcharan and
prepared memo, Exhibit P-14. Again on 27.01.1994 accused
Naresh gave information, Exhibit P-18, to PW-21 for the
F recovery of "Khurpi" the alleged weapon of offence and
pursuant to which PW-21 recovered "Khurpi" at the instance of
accused Naresh under Exhibit P-10.

5. Dr. Kailash Narain (PW-1) conducted the postmortem
G report of Smt. Guli Devi, which is exhibited in trial as Exhibit
P-1. According to the doctor all the injuries were ante-mortem
in nature and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock y •
associated with Asphyxia due to compression of neck. Sugan ....
Chand, Tehsildar, Bassi, examined as (PW-13), conducted the
H
STATE OF 'RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM 597
NARESH [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
identification of ornaments and it is alleged that Rameshwar A
(PW-14), husband of deceased Guli Devi correctly identified
ornaments of deceased - Guli Devi. After completion of the
investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the
respondent herein under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bassi, who in turn, committed B
the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge
framed charges against the accused under Sections 302 and
394 of the IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
c
6. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case
examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited some
documents. Thereafter, the accused was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the purposes of enabling him to explain
the circumstances existing against him. The accused, however, D
did not examine any witness in his defence.

7. On completion of the trial, the learned trial court passed
an order of conviction holding the accused/respondent guilty for
the offence under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC. After E
passing the order of conviction the accused was heard on the
question of sentence and thereafter the Sessions Judge passed
an order sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
passed by the trial court, the respondent herein filed an appeal F
in the High Court of Rajasthan, which was registered as D.B.
Crl. Jail Appeal No. 331 of 1996. The aforesaid appeal came
up for hearing before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court.
G
9. After screening the evidence on record, the High Court
held that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and the
entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial
evidence. Each of the circumstance allegedly making a chain
H
(

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~
A was examined by the High Court and on scrutiny thereof held
that none of the said circumstances lead to the inference that
the respondent had committed the aforesaid offence. The High
Court held that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
are full of discrepancies and they do not inspire confidence so
B as to conclude that the accused had committed the offence. The
High Court held that the statements of the prosecution
witnesses relating to "the accused last seen with the deceased'
do not inspire confidence for none of them specifically said that
the accused followed the deceased to the field, where the
c occurrence had taken place. So far the second circumstance,
that the accused was found running from the place of incident
just after the incident, is concerned, the High Court has pointed
out discrepancies in the evidence of PWs-4, 7, 8 and 9 and
on analyzing the same held that on the basis of aforesaid
D evidence it cannot be safely concluded that the deceased was 'y

last seen in the company of accused or that he was found
running from the place of occurrence having "Lotah" or "Potli"
in his hands.

E 10. Other circumstance allegedly proved by the
prosecution was the fact of recovery of ornaments belonging
to the deceased on the basis of the information furnished by
the accused. In that connection, the Division Bench held that
the only evidence, which is relied upon in that regard is the
F evidence of PWs - 20 and 21 and on scrutiny of the same the
High Court held that a glance at exhibit P-17 merely indicates
that accused informed Khushal Singh (PW-21) that he has sold
the ornaments to Ram Chandra Saraf, Fish Market, Banda,
whereas, /the ornaments were recovered from Ram Charan
G (PW-20). The High Court also found incongruity in the evidence
of PW-20, who has stated that he did not purchase the "" ....,.
ornaments. He could not give any satisfactory reply as to who
had left the said ornaments in his custody and possession. The
High Court also pointed out that according to the said witness
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM 599
NARESH [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-..(

the accused took away the ornaments on the same day, and A
therefore, there could be no case of recovering the ornaments
shown by the accused from PW-20. Resultantly, it was
concluded that it would not be safe to hold that recovery of
ornaments was in consonance with the information furnished
by the accused/Naresh, particularly, when neither the ornaments B
have been recovered from the same per~on about whom the
+ accused had informed nor the shop is the same, about which
the accused had indicated. In that view of the matter, it was held
that the recovery of the ornaments and identification thereof is
not conclusively proved. c
11. The next circumstance given by the High Court relates
to the recovery of weapon alleged to have been used in the
commission of the offence. The High Court pointed out that
~·
Exhibit P-10, which is "Khurpi", was recovered by the police did D
not have any bloodstains on it. Khushal Singh (PW-21) in his
cross-examination has also categorically admitted that prima-
facie no bloodstains were visible on "Khurpi" and for that reason
he did not send it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The High
-
Court also pointed out that the place from where the "Khurpi" E
was recovered was an open place and was accessible to all
and sundry. A perusal of Exhibit P-10 indicates that one
"Khurpi" was recovered under the heap of stones and that
"Khurpi" was found in a rusted condition. Another circumstance,
which was heavily relied upon by the prosecution and also by F
the trial court was recovery of strap of wrist watch found on the
dead body of Guli. The High Court held that two witnesses
Kailash (PW-5) and Rameshwar (PW-14) have stated that they
found the strap of wristwatch lying near the dead body before

-- "'(
the police reached the spot and they handed over the same to G
the police. The High Court, however, on scrutiny of the evidence
held that there is no evidence on record to prove and establish
that the said strap of wristwatch relates to accused Naresh. The
High Court also disbelieved the aforesaid circumstance, in view
.. H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~-
A of the fact that no watch has been recovered from the .
possession of accused Naresh to prove that the recovered
strap of wrist watch pertains to the watch of Naresh.

12. After discussi"g th,e ,entire circumstances in the light
-a of evidence on record, the High Court held that the prosecution
has utterly failed to prove any of the circumstances relied upon
and consequently it was held that the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accu~ed and accordingly the Hlgh Court
' , I

acquitted the respondent, ofI all the charges.
c 13. The State of Rajasthan being aggrieved by the said >-

order of acquittal preferred a special leave petition on which
notice was issued and leave granted. We have heard learned
counsel appearing for the parties when the appeal was listed
for final hearing, who have painstakingly taken us through the ~
D Jo-
evidence on record.

14. Mr. Milind Kumar, counsel appearing for the appellant
- State of Rajasthan submitted before us that there are number
of circumstances which lead to and prove the guilt of the
E respondent. The first circumstance, which was relied upon was
the "last seen factof of the accused going after the deceased
and thereafter coming out alone from the place of occurrence.
~
The next circumstance on which the public prosecutor relied
upon is the fact of smearing the body of the respondent with
F mud when he was coming from the filed. The other
circumstance heavily relied upon was the factor of recovery of
jewellery belonging to the deceased at the instance of the
accused from Ramcharan Shahu (PW-20). The other
circumstances like recovery of the dagger and the strap of
G wristwatch near the dead body were pressed into service by
y ....
the public prosecutor.

15. Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, the counsel appearing for the
respondent, however, submitted that since the present appeal
H ·-.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM 601
NARESH [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

is an appeal against an order of acquittal, the same should not A
be set aside unless the Court comes to a definite conclusion
on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence that it is the
accused who had committed the crime. It was vehemently
submitted by her that if two views are possible on the same
evidence, the one in favour of the accused must be preferred. B

+ 16. With the help of learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we have scrutinized the evidence on record. The trial
court on the basis of the evidence on record held that the
prosecution has produced following four types of circumstantial c
evidences:

(i) The accused was examining the palm by way of
palmistry, of the deceased and there the deceased
went towards the field.
D
(ii) The accused also went towards the field.

(iii) The accused washed his haods after committing the
offence and blood of the deceased was found at
the field. E

(iv) The accused returned from the field smeared with
mud, alongwith a "Potli" in his hand, he was seen
going away from the village, and upon the
identification of the accused, the jewellery of the F
deceased, which had been removed and taken
away by amputating feet from her body, the same
were seized and that identification proceedings of
these jewellery-items were carried out.

17. Each of the aforesaid circumstance was examined by G
the trial court in the light of the evidence on record and at the
end it was held that the aforesaid circumstances prove and
establish that it was accused who had committed the offence.
The High Court, however, found that none of the aforesaid H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~
A circumstances lead to a definite conclusion that it is the accused
and accused alone who had committed the offence.

18. Before we discuss the evidence on record, we must
bear in mind the scope of interference with an order of acquittal.
B An order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even
if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out
the finger1owards the accused. This Court has dealt with the t
scope of interference with an order of acquittal in a number of
cases. The principle deducible from the said Judgments
c regarding the scope of interference with an order of acquittal
could be summarized and the same is as follows:

In Anil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2004) 13 SCC 257, at
page 261, this court observed as under:
D "12. "5. 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 beoeuse the presumption of innocence of
the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden
E · thread which runs through the web of administration of
justice iri criminal cases is that if two views are possible
I
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
F 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 innocent. In
a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is
G
cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate 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 v.
State of M.P) The principle to be followed by the appellate
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM 603
NARESH [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
court considering the appeal against the judgment of A
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 B
were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra, Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State
+ of Gujarat, Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, Raj
Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, ·State of Punjab v. Kamai/
Singh and State of Punjab v. Pho/a Singh." c
In Chandrappa v. State of Kamataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415,
at page 432, this court observed as under:

"42. . . . In our considered view, the following general
D
principles regarding powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:

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

(2) 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 F
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring G
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 appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the court to review the evidEi!nce 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 to be innocent unless he is proved guilty
by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused
c having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
D
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial court".

In State of U.P. v. Gambhir Singh, (2005) 11 SCC 271,
at page 272, this court observed as under:
E
"We do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order of
the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. It is well
settled that if on the same evidence two views are
reasonably possible, the one in favour" of the accused must ~
F be preferred".

19. When we examine the present case in the light of the
background of the aforesaid legal principles, we find that none f.
of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stands
G proved against the accused leading to a definite conclusion that
it was the accused, who had committed the offence. It has
come on evidence that deceased went towards the field on )'

12.08.1993 at about 3 o'clock and that accused Naresh also
weot to the field with a "Latah" in his hand. However, such a
H statement appears not to have been made before th~ police
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM 605
NARESH [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

-(
and the same was found to be an improvement by the High A
Court and recorded so in the Judgment. Mathura (PW-4) has
stated in her deposition that she had gone to the "Kothi" for
feeding the cattle. She has also stated that when she was
sitting at the field for drinking water to cattle, she saw accused
Naresh was rur,ming towards the village and that accused was B
having a "Gaddi" with him and also one "Gaon". In her cross-
examination, she stated that she had seen the accused sitting
+ at the "Kheli" and that she had turned her back towards
accused/Naresh because accused was washing his hands. If
that witness was present in the field near the place of c
occurrence, there was no occasion as to why she would not
have seen the alleged actual occurrence. If the accused
committed the offence he must have stayed at the place of
occurrence for a very long time as it is alleged that the accused
had amputated both feet of the deceased and a pair of silver D
"l'-·
anklets of feet, one pair of silver bracelets of hands, one pair
of silver ear-rings and one golden nose-ring (nath) were
allegedly taken away by him. When the allegation is that of
amputation of both the feet by use of a "Khurpi" the same must
have taken considerable time during the course of which the E
said witness (PW-4) would have seen the occurrence itself.
There is also no explanation from PW4 as to why she turned
her back when she saw accused washing him hands. She does
not state that she had seen the deceased with the accused nor -
does she state that she had seen the accused smeared with F
mud.

20. There is not even a single statement coming from any
of the witnesses that they had seen any water being smeared
with blood of the deceased or any soil of the field being G
smeared with human blood. Some of the witnesses have
." stated that accused was smeared with mud when he was
~
returning from the field whereas Mathura (PW-4) does not say
so. She only states that she saw him running from the fields. It
is also. not known why the said witness had turned her back H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A towards the accused only because the accused was washing )...

his hands. If accused was washing his hands as stated by
Mathura (PW-4) there is no likelihood of body of the accused
being smeared with mud as alleged by some of the prosecution
witnesses (PWs 7 & 8).
8
21. The learned trial court also held accused guilty
because the strap of wristwatch was found near the dead body
of the deceased, which allegedly belong to the accused. On -+
scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any such direct evidence
c that the said strap of wristwatch belongs to the watch of the
accused: None of the witnesses stated that such strap of
wristwatch belongs to the accused nor any wristwatch has been
recove.red from the accused. So far the time of occurrence is
concerned there is also no unanimity and the evidence is scanty
r
D regarding the time of occurrence. In our considered opinion, the
i.;
evidence regarding commission of offence by the accused in
. the field and also amputation of legs of the deceased is neither
cogent nor reliable, and therefore, those circumstances cannot
be relied upon for basing conviction of the respondent.
E
22. So far as the circumstance about the recovery of
ornaments is concerned, the star witness in that regard is PW-
20. The said ornaments were recovered at the instance of
accused from the custody and possession of PW-20. We have
F very carefully analysed the evidence of PW-20 so as to find out
the credibility of the said witness. He had sfated in his
examination-in-chief that the accused came to him saying that
he wanted to sell the jewellery of his house. The said witness,
however, stated that they did not purchase such jewellery, which
G was, however, seized later on from him. He stated in his cross-
examination that they do the business for making new
... l
ornaments from the old ornaments. He also stated that the said
jewellery was not for their use and hence they refused to ....
purchase. He also stated that Naresh/accused himself is a gold/
H smith hence he used to come to him earlier also; He also
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM 607
NARESH [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
stated that Naresh asked him to keep the jewellery and told that A
he would come back soon, and therefore, he kept the said
jewellery and that on the same day accused took away his
ornaments. If the accused has taken away the jewellery on the
same day then how could the police recover the same jewellery
from the custody and possession of PW-20. Besides, since he 8
had stated that he would not purchase the jewellery there was
+ no occasion for Naresh to keep that jewellery with PW-20. In
the disclosure statements the accused stated that he sold the
jewellery to Ram Chandra Saraf whereas the same was
recovered from PW-20. On scrutinizing the evidence, we find c
that the aforesaid recovery of jewellery is shrouded in a total
mystery as it was not recovered from the place and person to
whom allegedly accused sold.

23. So far as recovery of "Khurpi" is concerned the same D
admittedly did not contain any bloodstains on it and it was
recovered from an open place. Since there was no bloodstain
on it, the police also did not send it for chemical examination.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the said weapon was used for
committing murder of the deceased. There could be some E
suspicion regarding the conduct of the accused at the time of
occurrence but the same cannot in any manner conclusively
4 prove and establish that the accused has committed the murder
of the deceased. Unless and until we are satisfied that the
evidence adduced clearly and pointedly establish the guilt of F
the accused we cannot pass an order of conviction by setting
aside the order of acquittal.

24. The view that is taken by the High Court is found to be
a plausible view, and therefore, the benefit must always go to G
-... the accused and not to the prosecution. If the prosecution wants
to prove_-the fact, the same must be proved by leading
evidence, which is reliable and trustworthy, which pinpoints and
conclusively proves the guilt of the accused. This is not a case
where we can safely hold that the evidence led was trustworthy H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A and conclusively establishes that it is the accused only, who had
committed. the offence. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case we are not inclined to interfere with
the order of acquittal.

)
25. We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal and uphold the
order of acquittal passed by the Division Bench of the High
I
Court.
+
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

,\ .