ROOPWANTI VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

ROOPWANTI VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1904 OF 2014
ROOPWANTI … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated
24.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh,
(hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No. 43/MA/2012
where the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of the charges framed against
them.
FACTS
2. Briefly, the facts relevant to the present appeal are that the respondents Nos.
2 to 6 herein, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the
1
deceased on 22.12.2009. The deceased was then taken to a hospital where he
later died the next day on 23.12.2009.
3. An FIR of the alleged incident was lodged on 22.12.2009 at Police Station
Karnal City, registered as FIR No. 905 against the respondents herein under
Sections 148,149,323,324,307,302 and 506 of the IPC, and the police began
the investigation.
4. On completion of the investigation, a final report was presented in court, and
the case was committed to the competent court for trial. The respondents
were charge sheeted vide order dated 17.05.2010 to which they pleaded not
guilty and sought for a full trial. After the appraisal of evidence, the trial
judge found the case of the prosecution to be doubtful which ultimately
resulted in the acquittal of all the respondent accused vide order dated
18.10.2011.
5. The Appellant herein aggrieved by the above-mentioned order of the Trial
Court filed a criminal appeal. The High Court vide impugned order dated
24.01.2013 dismissed the appeal on grounds that judgment of acquittal passed
by Trial Court was based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts and
there was no error. Aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
2
ANALYSIS
6. In its reasoning for acquitting the respondents herein, the Trial Court in its
findings held that none of the eyewitnesses were able to support the case of
the prosecution. The court noted that Appellant, who is the mother of the
deceased gave a completely different narration of events as compared to
PW1. The Trial Judge also noted that the presence of the Appellant on the
spot of the crime was also not proved, and that because she was mother of the
deceased, hence, an interested witness and her evidence was not reliable. It
was also observed that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, no
blood was present on the weapons recovered except for traces of blood on
one lathi, and even that could not be linked with the blood of the deceased.
7. In cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the courts must keep in mind
that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it
surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified. The
prosecution then, while still working under the same burden of proof, is
required to discharge a more onerous responsibility to annul and reverse the
fortified presumption of innocence. This fortification of the presumption of
innocence has been held in a catena of judgments by this court.
3
8. In the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat1
, this Court has
held that in cases of reversal of acquittal, where two views are possible, the
view which favors the accused has to be adopted. For the sake of
Convenience, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is being produced
hereunder:
“The settled position of law regarding the powers to be
exercised by the High Court in an appeal against the order of
acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to
review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based,
it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the
passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should
be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the
trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal case 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.”
9. Further, in the case of Suman Chandra Vs. Central Bureau Of
Investigation2 wherein the acquittal of the accused was challenged, this
court held that while exercising its powers to reverse an acquittal, the order
of the trial court must not only be erroneous, but also perverse and
1 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 748
2 Criminal Appeal No.1645 of 2021
4
unreasonable. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted
herein:
“It is well settled law that reversal of acquittal is permissible
only if the view of the Trial Court is not only erroneous but
also unreasonable and perverse. In our considered opinion,
the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view, which
was neither perverse nor unreasonable, and in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, ought not to have been
reversed or interfered with by the High Court.”
10. Similarly in the case of Mrinal Das & Others Vs. The State of
Tripura3
, this Court held that interference in a judgment of acquittal can
only be made if the judgment is “clearly unreasonable” and there are
“compelling and substantial reasons” for reversing the acquittal. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment is being reproduced herein:
"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when
there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so.
If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling
reason for interference. When the trial court has ignored the
evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored
material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic
experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the
decision of the trial Court depending on the materials
placed".
3 2011(9) SCC 479
5
CONCLUSION
11. As can be seen from the above-mentioned judgments, an additional layer
of protection is granted to an accused in cases where the accused already
enjoys an acquittal. In the present case, we are in agreement with the
decision of the High Court. From a perusal of the judgment of the Trial
Court, it can be seen that no perversity has been committed by the Trial
Court while reaching its conclusion. All the evidence on record has been
carefully perused and a detailed analysis has been carried out to come to
the conclusion.
12. In such circumstance, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of
the Trial Court as well as the High Court. As a consequence, the appeal
stands dismissed.
….……....….......................…,J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
….…....….......................…,J.
(B.V.NAGARATHNA)
NEW DELHI;
24TH FEBRUARY, 2023
6

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India