- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Haryana v. Krishan .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 22 March 1989, during the Phag festival, Sher Singh (PW 4) was allegedly assaulted by village carpenters. Shortly thereafter, Sher Singh’s brother Nafe Singh (PW 3) and their father Chandgi Ram went to the carpenters’ locality to enquire about the incident. According to the prosecution, co-accused Anant Ram and Jai Bhagwan held Chandgi Ram while the respondent, Krishan, struck his head with a lathi, causing him to fall. Chandgi Ram was taken to Civil Hospital, Dadri, where he was examined and later died. An FIR was registered on the basis of a statement given by Nafe Singh.
Following investigation, Krishan and the two co-accused were tried. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani convicted Krishan under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment; the co-accused were acquitted. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found multiple discrepancies in the prosecution case—particularly delay in receipt of the FIR by the Ilaqa Magistrate and variance between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony—and acquitted Krishan. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the acquittal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent by finding the prosecution evidence unreliable.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with an appellate acquittal when the view taken by the High Court is one possible view on the evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-State’s Arguments
- The discrepancies noted by the High Court (delay in FIR, inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence) lacked foundation and should not undermine the prosecution case.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The High Court correctly assessed the cumulative effect of inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution version doubtful and justifying acquittal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 21 | Appellate court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal. | Cited to affirm that interference is permissible only for substantial reasons. |
| Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 | Limits on overturning acquittals; presumption of innocence strengthened after acquittal. | Forms part of the consolidated principles guiding appellate review. |
| Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 | Need for “substantial reasons” to upset an acquittal. | Reinforced the threshold for interference. |
| Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484 | Criteria for treating a judgment of acquittal as “clearly unreasonable.” | Used to evaluate whether High Court ignored admissible evidence. |
| Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519 | Appellate duty to prevent miscarriage of justice whether by acquitting the guilty or convicting the innocent. | Part of the doctrinal framework cited. |
| State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 | Same line of authority on limited interference with acquittals. | Combined with other precedents to state governing standard. |
| State of Punjab v. Phola Singh (2003) 11 SCC 58 | Reiteration of principles on appellate restraint. | Added to cumulative authorities relied upon. |
| Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal (2003) 11 SCC 527 | Further clarification on review of acquittals. | Referenced to buttress the standard of review. |
| Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2004) 11 SCC 410 | Appellate powers in criminal acquittals. | Also cited in support of restraint unless judgment is perverse. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that some individual factors flagged by the High Court—such as the delay in the FIR reaching the Ilaqa Magistrate and discrepancies between the eyewitness account and medical testimony—might not independently vitiate the prosecution case. Nevertheless, the Court held that their cumulative impact “casts a shadow upon the credibility of the prosecution version.” Applying the settled principles governing interference with an acquittal, the Court emphasised that if the view taken by the High Court is a “possible view,” it should not be disturbed. As the High Court’s assessment of unreliability was within the range of reasonable conclusions, the presumption of innocence stood reinforced, and no “substantial reason” for appellate interference existed.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed; the respondent’s acquittal stands affirmed.
Consequently, the conviction and ten-year sentence imposed by the trial court remain set aside, and the respondent continues to stand acquitted. The judgment does not create new legal precedent but re-affirms established principles limiting appellate interference with acquittals.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent deserves to be acquitted and the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani is not correct. It is to be noted that the learned Sessions Judge had found the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine with default stipulation. However, the two co-accused persons, Jai Bhagwan and Anant Ram were acquitted.
2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:
On 22-3-1989, it was Phag festival. PW 4, Sher Singh, brother of Nafe Singh (PW 3) had gone to the bazaar for playing Phag. However, Nafe Singh (PW 3) and his father, Chandgi Ram (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) remained at the house.
3. Naresh Kumar, nephew of Nafe Singh, visited them at about 3 p.m and informed that Sher Singh (PW 4) had been beaten by carpenters of their village. On receipt of this information, PW 3, Nafe Singh along with his father, Chandgi Ram went towards the houses of carpenters. His father was ahead of him, while he was following him. When they reached near the shop of Jai Singh, then he started talking with Jai Singh while Chandgi Ram went ahead. Chandgi Ram enquired from the carpenters about the whereabouts of Sher Singh, PW 4, upon which the carpenters lost temper. Anant Ram and Jai Bhagwan, accused (now acquitted) caught hold of Chandgi Ram from his arms while Krishan, respondent, inflicted a lathi-blow on the head of Chandgi Ram. On receipt of the lathi-blow, he fell down and the respondent along with the co-accused ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by Nafe Singh and Jai Singh.
4. In the meantime, Harish also appeared. Chandgi Ram was put into a tempo and was taken to Civil Hospital, Dadri, where he was admitted and was medico-legally examined. The police reached the hospital. Nafe Singh made statement, Ext. PL to Inder Singh Saini, Sub-Inspector (PW 5) which was signed after admitting the same to be correct. Inder Singh Saini (PW 5) made endorsement, Ext. PL-1 and sent it to the police station for registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR, Ext. PL-2 was recorded by Dalip Singh, Sub-Inspector.
5. Inder Singh Saini, SI (PW 5), then went to the place of occurrence but none was found there and he stayed in the village. On the next day i.e on 23-3-1989, he called chowkidar and Jai Singh also came there and on the pointing out of Jai Singh, he took bloodstained earth from the spot after making it into a sealed parcel vide memo, Ext. PM attested by the witnesses. He also recorded the statement of Sher Singh (PW 4) who had come there and sent him for his medico-legal examination to Civil Hospital, Dadri.
6. At about 8 a.m, he received ruqa through Constable Ram Pal, informing him about the death of Chandgi Ram and then he converted the offence into Section 302 IPC. He went to Civil Hospital, Dadri and prepared inquest report, Ext. PG and got conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Chandgi Ram. Head Constable Parkash Chand handed over one packet to him which he took into possession vide memo, Ext. PM. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He apprehended the respondent and his two companions on 27-3-1989. He interrogated the respondent and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Ext. PQ recovered lathi, Ext. P-3 which was made into a sealed parcel and was taken into possession. Before taking into possession, he prepared rough sketch of the lathi, Ext. PS and also a site plan of the place of recovery, Ext. PT.
7. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. The prosecution examined six witnesses. One Jai Singh was given up as he was supposed to be won over. The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of PW 3 and directed conviction as recorded above.
8. In appeal, the High Court found that there were several factors which made the prosecution version unreliable. It was noted that the first information report was purportedly lodged on 22-3-1989 but the same was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate after a long time i.e on 24-3-1989 though the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate was situated at less than half a kilometre. Additionally, the number of injuries as stated by the so-called eyewitness, PW 3 was at great variance with the medical evidence. It also noted that the medical examination conducted at 3.30 p.m by Dr. M.M Sharma, PW 1 showed that the injuries were caused within a duration of 6 to 12 hours. His specific evidence was that the deceased could have received the injuries at about 10 a.m on 22-3-1989 and he had not received injuries within six hours. According to the prosecution version the occurrence took place at 3.30 p.m and the medico-legal examination was done at 5.30 p.m
9. Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the factors highlighted by the High Court to direct acquittal have no foundation. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
10. “8. … 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 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 the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is 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 (2003) 3 SCC 21) The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are … 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 [substantial] reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225, Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519, State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 and State of Punjab v. Phola Singh (2003) 11 SCC 58.”
See Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal (2003) 11 SCC 527 and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P (2004) 11 SCC 410
11. Though some of the factors highlighted by the High Court may not create a dent in the prosecution version, but the cumulative effect certainly casts a shadow upon the credibility of the prosecution version. The view taken is a possible view. Therefore, no interference is called for.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
Alert