IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABC ….APPELLANT
Versus
..RESPONDENTS
XYZ
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1 P. Eknath v. Y. Amaranatha Reddy @ Babu and Anr. 1-8

AIR 2017 SC 1160
2 Rajagopal v. Muthupandi @ Thavakkalai and Ors. 9-11
AIR 2017 SC 1230
3 Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 12-25
(2016) 4 SCC 357
4 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Ors. 26-38
(2011) 4 SCC 324
5 State of Rajasthan v. Islam and Ors. 39-46
(2011) 6 SCC 343
6 Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 47-65
(2007) 4 SCC 415
7 State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh 66-75
(2003) 11 SCC 271
8 State of Karnataka v. Bheemappa and Ors. 76-87
1994 SUPP (1) SCC 103
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
1. Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana 1-9
(2015)12 SCC 644

2. Praful Sudhakar Parab v. State of Maharashtra 10-23

(2016) 12 SCC 783
3. Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan 24-43
(2017) 8 SCC 497
EXPERT EVIDENCE
1. Murari LaL v. Sate of Madhya Pradesh 1-10
(1980) 1 SCC 704

APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL

1. P. Eknath v. Y. Amaranatha Reddy @ Babu and Anr., AIR 2017 SC 1160

@Para 23: the High Court has failed to appreciate such evidence which was brought before the Court and further
the facts which ought to have been taken into consideration at the time of the matter to be decided by the High
Court and without giving any reasons, set aside the well reasoned order of the Trial Court.
@Para 24: the order passed by the High Court is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law and we set aside
the order passed by it affirming the order passed by the trial Court.

2. Rajagopal v. Muthupandi @ Thavakkalai and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 1230

Para 10: Given the fact that stares one in the face, namely, that the High Court has not at all dealt
with the direct evidence of PW-1 and given the fact that such evidence has stood the test of
cross-examination, we are constrained to observe that the view taken by the High Court is not a
possible view and we therefore set aside the acquittal of the five accused persons and restore
the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the Trial Court.

3. Sadhu Saran Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors , (2016) 4 SCC 357

@Para20: an appeal against acquittal, altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal
against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when
there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that 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.
@Para21: This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court,
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, 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.

4. State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 32

@Para 34: The law well settled while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, appellate court must
consider the entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the
trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable - appellate court must also consider whether
the court below placed burden of proof incorrectly or failed to take into consideration any
admissible evidence or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law?
In exceptional cases, whether there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is
found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. So, in order to
warrant interference by the appellate court, a finding of fact recorded by the court below must be
outweighed evidence or such finding if outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
irrationality.

5. State of Rajasthan v. Islam & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 343

@Para 14: The learned counsel for Respondent 1 has urged that this Court should not interfere in
the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution when an order of acquittal was
granted by the High Court and Respondent 1 had suffered imprisonment for 6 years. There is no
such absolute proposition in law as has been said to be advanced by the learned counsel for
Respondent 1. When this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 136, it definitely exercises
a discretionary jurisdiction but such discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised in order to ensure
that there is no miscarriage of justice. If the consideration by the High Court is misconceived and
perverse as indicated above, there is nothing in law which prevents this Court from exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 136 against an order of acquittal when such acquittal cannot be sustained
at all, in view of the evidence on record.
@Para 16: The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering an appeal against an
order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so.
Thus, in such cases, this Court would usually not interfere unless:
The finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the appraisal of evidence. (State of
U.P. v. Sahai [(1982) 1 SCC 352 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 223 : AIR 1981 SC 1442] , at SCC paras 20-
22 : AIR paras 19-21.)
(ii) The finding is perverse. (State of M.P. v. Bacchudas [(2007) 9 SCC 135 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri)
87] at SCC para 10 and State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar [(2005) 9 SCC 769 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri)
146] at SCC para 9.)
(iii) The order suffers from substantial errors of law and fact. (Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir[(1997)
4 SCC 496 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 591] at SCC para 5.)
(iv) The order is based on misconception of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence. (State of
U.P. v. Abdul [(1997) 10 SCC 135 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 804] ; State of U.P. v. Premi[(2003) 9 SCC
12 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1731] at SCC para 15.)
(v) The High Court has adopted an erroneous approach resulting in miscarriage of justice. (State
of T.N. v. Suresh [(1998) 2 SCC 372 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 751] at SCC paras 31 and 32; State of
M.P. v. Paltan Mallah [(2005) 3 SCC 169 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 674] at SCC para 8.)
(vi) Acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds. (Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham[(1979) 2 SCC
297 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 454] at SCC para 4.)
(vii) The High Court has completely misdirected itself in reversing the order of conviction by the
trial court. (Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P. [1990 Supp SCC 656 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 67 :
AIR 1990 SC 709] )
(viii) The judgment is tainted with serious legal infirmities. (State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao
Gangaram Pimple [(1984) 1 SCC 446 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 109 : AIR 1984 SC 63] at SCC para 45 :
AIR para 45.)
@Para 17: In reversing an acquittal, this Court keeps in mind that presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused is fortified by an order of acquittal and if the view of the High Court is
reasonable and founded on materials on record, this Court should not interfere. However, if this
Court is of the opinion that the acquittal is not based on a reasonable view, then it may review the
entire material and there will be no limitation on this Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 to come
to a just decision quashing the acquittal. [See State (Delhi Admn.) v. Laxman Kumar [(1985) 4
SCC 476 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 2] at SCC para 45 and Dharma v. Nirmal Singh [(1996) 7 SCC 471 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 444] at SCC para 4.]

6. Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415

@Para 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 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 should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

7. State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271

@Para 6: 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.

8. State of Karnataka v. Bheemappa and Ors., 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 103

@Para 8: The power of this Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, after granting
leave under Article 136, is in no way different than its power in hearing an appeal
against conviction and sentence and the Court can with a view to do justice, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of a case, make an independent appraisal of the evidence on the record, so as to
determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It can go into all questions of fact and law and
reach its own conclusion based on the evidence on record. Of course, this Court gives due weight
and consideration to the reasoning of the courts below while dealing with an appeal brought before
it on leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
1. Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644

Para 8: no eyewitness- entire case based upon circumstantial evidence - The normal principle -
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established-definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused - cumulatively form
chain so complete, no escape from conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other
than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence vide Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of MaharashtraSharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC 116.
The same view was reiterated in Bablu v. State of Rajasthan Bablu Alias Mubarik Hussain v. State
Of Rajasthan.

2. Praful Sudakar Parab v. State of Maharastra (2016) 12 SCC 783

@Para 13:The present is a case where no eye witness is produced. The prosecution has based its
case on circumstantial evidence. Whether conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
upheld and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction are the questions to be
answered in this appeal. This Court on several occasions has considered the law regarding basing
of conviction by the Court on a circumstantial evidence. It is useful to refer to the judgement of
the apex Court in Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1982 (2) SCC 351, wherein the apex Court
laid down that circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
cogently and firmly established.
@Para 14:Referring to the above judgment of Gambhir Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra),
principles were again reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.V. Chacko Vs. State of Kerala, 2001
(9) SCC 277, wherein following was laid down in paragraph 5: The law regarding basing a
conviction by the courts on circumstantial evidence is well settled.
When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards
guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete
that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction
must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused
but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
@Para 15: Again in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 681,
following was laid down in paragraph 12: “12. In the case in hand there is no eye-witness of the
occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle
in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of
guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances
should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the
circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from
the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they
should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused
and inconsistent with his innocence.”
@Para 16:. In State of U.P. Vs. Satish, 2005 (3) SCC 114, this Court reiterated that there is no
doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the
touch stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence. Following was laid down in paragraphs
14,15 and 16:
“14. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should
be tested by the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court as
far back in 1952.
15. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR (1952) SC 343 it was observed thus;
"It is well to remember that in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency
and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that
within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
16. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 3(1994) SC 1622. Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has
been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity
of lacuna in the prosecution cannot be cured by a false defence or plea. The conditions precedent
in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence must be
fully established. They are:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) There must
be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the- innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.”

3. Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan (2017) 8 SCC 497

@Para 28: Which of the two hypothesis prevails in the present case, is the question? We have to
keep in mind that this Court is dealing with a criminal matter where appellant is charged with
committing murder of Pooja. Criminal cases cannot be decided on the basis of hypothesis. Another
aspect which is to be kept in mind is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
charged for such an offence and that too, beyond reasonable doubt. In a case where there is no
eyewitness and, which rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obligated to prove all
those circumstances which leave no manner of doubts to establish the guilt of the accused person,
i.e., chain of circumstances must be complete and must clearly point to the guilt of the accused.
Chain of continuous circumstances means that all the circumstances are linked up with one another
and the chain does not get broken in between.
@Para 29: It is now well established, by catena of judgements of this Court, that circumstantial
evidence of the following character needs to be fully established:
(i) Circumstances should be fully proved.
(ii) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature. Crl.A. No. 1074 of 2007
(iii) All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
(iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person
other than the accused (see State vs. Dr. Ravindra; 1992 (3) SCC 300); Chandrakant vs. State of
Gujarat; (1992) 1 SCC 473. It also needs to be emphasised that what is required is not the
quantitative, but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the claim connecting
the accused with the crime. Suspicion, however grave, cannot take place of legal proof. In the case
of circumstantial evidence the influence of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be not compatible with the innocence of the accused or the
guilt of any other person.
@Para 30: Following tests laid down in Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of A.P.1 also need to be
kept in mind:
“10. (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently
and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;
(3)the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only e consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence.”
@Para 31: Sir Alfred Wills in his book Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence (Chapter VI) lays down
the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
“(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond
reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum;
(2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers
legal accountability;
(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence, the best evidence must be adduced
with the nature of the case admits;
(4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the
innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than
that of his guilt; and (5) if there by any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled
as of right to be acquitted.”

EXPERT EVIDENCE
1. Murari Lal v. Sate of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704

It is also to be noticed that s. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant,
relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions
are relevant. So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion
of handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular
case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule,
but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged
reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing
with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons
for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.