RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR ETC & Anr.

Court stated that this is a fit case for initiating proceedings of perjury against the appellant. No doubt, the appellant who was the informant did not at all support the case of the prosecution during trial and as a result, the High Court acquitted the accused. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases and bearing in mind that there were two deaths in the incident that occurred on 10th March, 2005 which has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the portion of the impugned judgment and order directing the trial court to initiate proceedings of perjury against the appellant is set aside. [Paras 54, 57, 58][1080-A-B, D-F] Atley vs. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 715 : [1961] 3 SCR 120; Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217 : [1955] 2 SCR 1285; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 : [1963] 2 SCR 405; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : [1974] 1 SCR 489; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 265; Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 110 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 444; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 265; Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630; Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 12 SCC 351 : [2009] 6 SCR 982 – relied on. Case Law Reference AIR 1934 PC 227(2) AIR 1955 SC 807 [1961] 3 SCR 120 [1955] 2 SCR 1285 [1963] 2 SCR 405 [1974] 1 SCR 489 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 265 relied on Para 20 Para 21 Para 21 Para 21 Para 22 Para 23 Para 24 A B C D E F G H RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. 1051 [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 444 relied on [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 265 relied on [2007] 2 SCR 630 [2009] 6 SCR 982 AIR 1981 SC 1442 [1979] 3 SCR 482 relied on relied on relied on relied on (1990) CrLJ 2274 (SC) relied on [1983] 2 SCR 53 AIR 1981 SC 879 AIR 1980 SC 184 [1983] 2 SCR 53 [1979] 3 SCR 482 AIR 1986 SC 1959 AIR 1981 SC 1675 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 25 Para 26 Para 27 Para 29 Para 30 (a) Para 30 (a) Para 30 (a) Para 30 (B) (i) (a) Para 30 (B) (i) (a) Para 30 (B) (i) (b) Para 30 (B) (i) (c) Para 30 (B) (i) (d) Para 30 (B) (i) (e) Para 30 (B) (i) (f) [1989] (1) Suppl SCR 292 relied on Para 30 (B) (i) (f) AIR 1986 SC 1899 AIR 1989 SC 1205 [1983] 3 SCR 294 [1982] 1 SCR 299 relied on relied on relied on relied on Para 30 (B) (i) (f) Para 30 (B) (ii) (a) Para 30 (B) (ii) (a) Para 30 (B) (ii) (b) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 111-113 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.714, 747 and 814 of 2008. Ms. Prerna Singh, T. Mahipal, Advs. for the Appellant. Saket Singh, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Advs. for the Respondents. A B C D E F G H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NAGARATHNA J.

#1. These appeals have been filed by the appellant - informant (PW-7 Rajesh Prasad) assailing the judgment and order dated 5th August, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos.714, 747 and 814 of 2008 by which the judgment of conviction dated 26th June, 2008 and order of sentence dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Munger, has been set aside by allowing the aforesaid appeals and by accordingly answering the Death Reference No.13/2008 and consequently acquitting all the accused.

#2. The Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Munger, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fast Track Court’) vide its judgment dated 26th June, 2008 convicted the respondents herein viz., Upendra Ram, Mahendra Ram and Munna Ram. By order dated 30th June, 2021, the Fast Track Court sentenced Upendra Ram to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 302/34 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under section 504 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each for the offence under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The Fast Track Court sentenced the accused viz., Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram to death under sections 302/34 read with section 120B of IPC and sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, subject to confirmation by the High Court. The Fast Track Court however acquitted the other accused viz., Fantus Mandal, Dhappu Ram and Chandrabhanu Prasad.

#3. It is the case of the prosecution that on Thursday, 10th March, 2005, at about 5.00 pm, accused Mahendra Ram, Upendra Ram, Munna Ram, Dhappu Ram, all being sons of Kishori Ram and Chandrabhanu Prasad, with two other unknown persons proceeded towards the informant viz., Rajesh Prasad (PW-7) and protested that as the informant had opposed their illegal activities, his entire family would be blown off by a bomb. Accused Munna Ram threw a bomb at the informant’s father Chhote Lal Mahto who was sitting in his betel (pan) shop. The rear portion of his father’s head was blown off leading to his death. Accused B C D E F G H RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. [NAGARATHNA, J.] 1053 Mahendra Ram threw another bomb against O.P. Verma and as a result thereof, his head was blown away and he died on the spot. Further, Upendra Ram hurled another bomb which missed injuring anyone else and exploded on the road. Then accused Chandrabhanu and Dappu Ram stated that they would proceed from there as their job had been completed and they tried to flee from the spot, but the furious public caught hold of an unknown person and assaulted him as a result of which he was seriously injured and he died. The accused, while fleeing away, threatened that their action was a result of opposition by the informant against the illicit sale of liquor by them and if anyone again obstructed their business, they would face similar consequences. Accused-Chandrabhanu Prasad helped the accused-Munna Ram to flee from the spot.

#4. The informant had further stated that he was objecting to the illegal sale of liquor by the accused and on account of enmity and in pursuance of their common intention and object, they had hurled bombs and killed the father of the informant as well as others.

#5. On receipt of the said information, a case was registered at Kotawali PS being Case No.136/2005 dated 10thMarch, 2005 under sections 302/34, 120B of IPC and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the accused. The police investigated the case and submitted the chargesheet dated 7thJune, 2005 against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, keeping investigation pending with regard to the other charges for offences under sections 302, 120B, 504, 225 of IPC and section 3/4 of the Act. On 8th June, 2005, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, took cognizance of the alleged offences against the accused and committed the case to the Court of Sessions after complying with the provision of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the ‘Cr.PC’) vide order dated 17th June, 2005.

#6. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge-I, Munger and later on, to the Fast Track Court on 9th December, 2005. Thereafter, the charge for the concerned offences was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

#7. The prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses and took note of Material Objects (MOs). Thereafter, statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.PC were recorded. All the accused denied the alleged occurrence and submitted that they were innocent and had been A B C D E F G H 1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H falsely implicated. They contended that there were dues in respect of liquor taken by Ashok Yadav from the informant who was running an illegal liquor shop. The said dues were demanded from Ashok Yadav for which there was a scuffle between them and the family of the informant assaulted Ashok Yadav. As a result, some unknown persons became furious and hurled bombs and caused the alleged occurrence. That the associates of the informant had looted the tea shop of accused Dhappu Ram and that the informant had falsely implicated the accused.

#8. We have heard Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Saket Singh, learned counsel for the State and Sri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the material on record.

#9. Appellant’s counsel submitted that the High Court was not right in setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast-Track Court, thereby acquitting the accused. She drew our attention to the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 and contended that the same would clearly establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the High Court has not appreciated the case of the appellant herein in its proper perspective and has set aside the judgment of the Fast-Track Court. The appellant-informant PW-7 who is one of the sons of the deceased Chhote Lal Mahto had clearly stated in the complaint and also in his deposition about the culpability of the accused which has not been properly appreciated by the High Court.

#10. While drawing our attention to the evidence on record, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has arrived at incorrect conclusions and thereby reversing the judgment of the Fast- Track Court.

#11. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that while acquitting the accused, the High Court has directed that proceedings of perjury be initiated against the appellant herein which was wholly unnecessary having regard to the fact that the Fast Track Court had accepted the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the evidence of the appellant herein as well as other eyewitnesses had convicted the accused.

#12. Learned counsel for the appellant finally contended that the impugned judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the judgment of the Fast Track Court be restored as the accused have committed serious RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. [NAGARATHNA, J.] 1055 offences under section 302/34 read with section 120B of IPC as well as other sections resulting in death of two persons, one being the father of the appellant as well as another, on account of the bombs hurled by the accused against the deceased. She submitted that the third bomb which was hurled by an accused missed injuring any person but that would not in any way lead to his acquittal.

#13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- accused supported the judgment of the High Court and contended that the High Court has rightly perceived and assessed the evidence on record and as a result reversed the erroneous judgment of the Fast-Track Court. It was submitted that the Fast-Track Court failed to note that the evidence on record did not prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt vis-à-vis the accused and despite that death penalty had been imposed on two of the accused and life imprisonment on another accused which has been rightly reversed by the High Court by a reasoned judgment. Therefore, the impugned judgment would not call for any interference at the hands of this Court as there is no merit in these appeals. Hence, the appeals may be dismissed.

#14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the following points would arise for our consideration: (a) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast- Track Court, thereby acquitting all the accused? (b) Whether the judgment of the High Court calls for any interference or modification by this Court? (c) What order?

#15. The Fast-Track Court considered the case of the prosecution being that on 10th March, 2005 at about 5.00 pm, the accused came to the informant and stated that since the informant and his family were objecting to his illegal sale of country made liquor, he along with his family would be eliminated. Then, accused Munna Ram hurled a bomb that he was holding in his hand and the father of the informant, Chhote Lal Mahto, sitting at the betel shop died in the blast. Second bomb was hurled by accused Mahendra Ram causing the death of a pedestrian named O.P. Verma and the third bomb was thrown by accused Upendra Ram, which exploded on the road. The accused then fled from the spot. That the offences were committed by the accused as a result of objection A B C D E F G H 1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H raised by the deceased Chhote Lal Mahto and his son PW-7 Rajesh Prasad-informant, appellant herein, against the illegal liquor business of the accused.

#16. The Fast-Track Court also noted that the defence was unable to substantiate their case that the tea shop of accused Dhappu Ram had been looted by the informant and his associates. They further stated that there were disputes in respect of payment of prices of liquor by Ashok Yadav and as a result the latter and his associates had exploded the bombs.

#17. The versions of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 who were eyewitnesses as well as that of PW-7 i.e. the informant were accepted by the Fast Track Court as being consistent with each other as their ocular testimony proved the prosecution case beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, three of the accused were convicted and sentenced as noted above.

#18. The Fast Track Court on considering the evidence on record held as under and came to the following conclusion: (i) (ii) (iii) That PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7 are related to each other, they being the son-in-law, cousin and sons of the deceased, Chhote Lal Mahto respectively. PW-2 is the shopkeeper of the PCO booth which is the shop adjoining the betel shop of the informant. PW-2 was also injured by a splinter of the bomb which was hurled on the deceased Chhote Lal Mahto who was in his betel shop. PW-8 also witnessed the occurrence. As such, PW-2 and PW-8 are independent witnesses. PW-5 is the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination of the deceased and PWs-9 and 10 are the Investigating Officers (IOs) of the case. That totally three bombs were hurled resulting in the death of Chhotey Lal Mahto and another person and the third bomb exploded on the road. As a result, the public became furious and caught hold of an unknown person and assaulted him, which resulted in his death. It had come in the evidence that the said person was Ashok Yadav. That the name of Fantus alias Udai Prakash Mandal had not been found in the FIR and the witnesses had not testified against his involvement in the occurrence nor has there been any overt act alleged against him. RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. [NAGARATHNA, J.] 1057 (iv) No overt act had been alleged against Dhappu Ram and A Chandrabhanu Prasad. (v) Consequently, Fantus Mandal, Dhappu Ram and Chandrabhanu Prasad were not found guilty of any offences alleged and they were acquitted. (vi) Considering the evidence on record, it was found that Upendra Ram, Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram were guilty and they were convicted and sentenced as stated above by the Fast Track Court.

#19. In the appeals filed by the accused and in the Death Reference No.13/2008, the High Court, on considering the submissions made on behalf of the accused as well as the State, noted at the outset as under: “It is trite law that acquittal of a co-accused cannot simpliciter be a ground for acquittal of other accused. There may be factors distinguishing the two cases. Alternately, an erroneous acquittal and absence of any challenge to the same cannot be a ground to demand similar treatment by others. Likewise, the testimony of an interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone. It would only require the Court to be more cautious and scrutinize the evidence carefully. Evidence, otherwise cogent and convincing cannot be rejected on the ground that there was no independent witness, though the occurrence had taken place on a busy road. But, there may be circumstances where the witnesses are interested and the manner of occurrence as described requires corroboration by independent witness also. Ultimately, therefore, it shall all depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It has also to be kept in mind that it shall be those close to the deceased, who shall be most keen that the real culprits be booked.” With the aforesaid observations, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction of the accused who were convicted by the Fast- Track Court as well as sentence imposed upon them and accordingly, allowed the appeals by acquitting all the accused.

#20. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to review the approach to be adopted while deciding an appeal against acquittal by the trial court as well as by the High Court. Section 378 of the Cr.P.C deals with appeals in case of acquittal. In one of the earliest cases on the B C D E F G H 1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. powers of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup vs. R. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227(2) considered the provisions relating to the power of an appellate court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and observed as under: “16. 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 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 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. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and 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 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. 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.” It was stated that the appellate court has full powers to review and to reverse the acquittal.

#21. In Atley vs. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807, the approach of the appellate court while considering a judgment of acquittal was discussed and it was observed that unless the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the acquittal was perverse, it could not set aside the same. To a similar effect are the following observations of this Court speaking through Subba Rao J., (as His Lordship then was) in Sanwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715: A B C D E F G H RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. [NAGARATHNA, J.] 1059 “9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (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 Sheo Swarup case afford a correct guide for the appellate court’s approach to a case disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different 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 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 express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified.” The need for the aforesaid observations arose on account of observations of the majority in Aher Raja Khimavs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 which stated that for the High Court to take a different view on the evidence “there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong.”

#22. M.G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 is the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court, speaking through Gajendragadkar, J. (as His Lordship then was). This Court observed that the approach of the High Court (appellate court) in dealing with an appeal against acquittal ought to be cautious because the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused “is not certainly weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial.”

#23. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, Krishna Iyer, J., observed as follows: “In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must 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.” A B C D E F G H 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R.

#24. This Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225, spoke about the approach of the appellate court while considering an appeal against an order acquitting the accused and stated as follows: “While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, 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 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.” The object and the purpose of the aforesaid approach is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. In another words, there should not be an acquittal of the guilty or a conviction of an innocent person.

#25. In Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 110, this Court set out the following principles that would regulate and govern the hearing of an appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court: “16. This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court. These principles have been set out in innumerable cases and may be reiterated as under: (1) (2) In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers, and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (3) Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal A B C D E F G H RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. [NAGARATHNA, J.] 1061 (4) (5) (6) (7) was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box. The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused.”

#26. This Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 observed vis-à-vis the powers of an appellate court while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, as under: “7. … While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, 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 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.”

#27. This Court in Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, highlighted that there is one significant difference in exercising power while hearing an appeal against acquittal by the appellate A B C D E F G H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H court. The appellate court would not interfere where the judgment impugned is based on evidence and the view taken was reasonable and plausible. This is because the appellate court will determine the fact that there is presumption in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt but if it decides to interfere it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of acquittal.

#28. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general 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 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 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 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 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 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 having secured his acquittal, the RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. [NAGARATHNA, J.] 1063 presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. A (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

#29. In Nepal Singh vs. State of Haryana– (2009) 12 SCC 351, this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court which had set aside the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court and restored the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused on reappreciation of the evidence.

#30. The circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by this Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court may be summarized as follows: A) Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering with an order of acquittal, especially when the order of acquittal has been confirmed upto the High Court. It is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [State of U.P. v. Sahai, AIR 1981 SC 1442] Such fetters on the right to entertain an appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case, even though it is held by a superior court. [Arunachalam v. Sadhananthan, AIR 1979 (SC) 1284] An appeal cannot be entertained against an order of acquittal which has, after recording valid and weighty reasons, has arrived at an unassailable, logical conclusion which justifies acquittal. [State of Haryana v. Lakhbir Singh, (1990) CrLJ 2274 (SC)] B) However, this Court has on certain occasions, set aside the order of acquittal passed by a High Court. The circumstances under which this Court may entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction, may be summarised as follows: B C D E F G H 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. A i) Where the approach or reasoning of the High Court is perverse: a) Where incontrovertible evidence has been rejected by the High Court based on suspicion and surmises, which are rather unrealistic. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh, AIR 1984 SC 207] For example, where direct, unanimous accounts of the eye-witnesses, were discounted without cogent reasoning; [State of UP v. Shanker, AIR 1981 SC 879] b) Where the intrinsic merits of the testimony of relatives, living in the same house as the victim, were discounted on the ground that they were ‘interested’ witnesses; [State of UP v. Hakim Singh, AIR 1980 SC 184] c) Where testimony of witnesses had been disbelieved by the High Court, on an unrealistic conjecture of personal motive on the part of witnesses to implicate the accused, when in fact, the witnesses had no axe to grind in the said matter. [State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh, AIR 1984 SC 207] d) Where dying declaration of the deceased victim was rejected by the High Court on an irrelevant ground that they did not explain the injury found on one of the persons present at the site of occurrence of the crime. [Arunachalam v. Sadhanantham, AIR 1979 SC 1284] e) Where the High Court applied an unrealistic standard of ‘implicit proof’ rather than that of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and therefore evaluated the evidence in a flawed manner. [State of UP v. Ranjha Ram, AIR 1986 SC 1959] f) Where the High Court rejected circumstantial evidence, based on an exaggerated and capricious theory, which were beyond the plea of the accused; [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, B C D E F G H RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. [NAGARATHNA, J.] 1065