SADHU SARAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

Judgment

[2016] l S.C.R. 913 SADHU SARAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1467-1468 of2005) FEBRUARY 26, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss.147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 - Prosecution under - Death of three persons and injury of eye-witness - Caused by five accused - Trial court convicted all the accused C and sentenced three of the accused to life imprisonment and two of the accused to death sentence for the offence of murder - High Court acquitted all the accused of all the charges - On appeal, held: The reasons given by High Court acquitting the accused are flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence - Prosecution case was fully supported by the ocular evidence of two eye-witnesses - Non-examination of injured wilness would not 'be fatal to the prosecution case, in the facts of the case - The prosecution case cannot be detailed on the ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy -All the accused are liable to be convicted - However, the death sentence of the two accused awarded by the trial court is converted to life imprisonment and ali the accused are sentenced to life imprisonment.

E D Appeal - Against acquittal - Power of appellate court - Scope of - Held: Court has the power to review and relook the entire evidence - Appellate Court can interfere with the acquittal order if it is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law. Judgment - Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion in a ;udgment - Without proper reason, the conclusion becomes lifeless. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocen.ce in favour of the accused is reinforced, 913 F G H 914 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R. the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law.

However, the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate Court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the Court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate Court with such an order is imperative. [Paras 18 and 19] f923-E-F; 924-BJ