Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Achhar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 07 May 2021
Citation: Achhar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1140-1141 of 2010; Budhi Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2010
Judges: Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a High Court overturn an acquittal by a trial court? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case involving a brutal attack and murder. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was correct in reversing the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of separating truth from falsehood in witness testimonies.

Case Background

On the night of 23 February 1996, Meera Devi (P.W.11) and Swari Devi, wife and mother of Netar Singh, respectively, attended a wedding in a nearby village. Upon returning home with food, they were attacked by Budhi Singh, Achhar Singh, and other villagers. The attackers, armed with axes, sickles, spears, and sticks, broke into Netar Singh’s house. Budhi Singh struck Swari Devi on the head with an axe, killing her. Achhar Singh attacked Beli Ram with an axe, causing him to faint. Netar Singh was also beaten before escaping to the roof.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, acquitted all accused on 24 February 1998, citing prior enmity and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, however, overturned the acquittal of Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh on 12 May 2010/27 May 2010, while upholding the acquittal of the other five accused. The High Court found consistent evidence against Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh despite some contradictions in the evidence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 452, Indian Penal Code, 1860: House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the scope of appellate review of acquittals under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh):

• The trial court’s view was a ‘possible view,’ and the High Court should not have interfered.
• The High Court should not set aside the trial court’s judgment merely because the appellate court’s view is more probable, and there has to be perversity in the trial court’s judgment.
• Trial Courts are in a better position to judge the credibility of witnesses due to their proximity.
• Prosecution witnesses exaggerated and falsely implicated the accused.
• Medical evidence contradicted the eye-witness accounts of multiple head injuries to the deceased.
• The axe was recovered from a public place and could not be held to be in Budhi Singh’s possession.
• There was no conclusive presence of blood on the axes recovered.
• Budhi Singh had no reason to leave his daughter’s wedding celebration to attack his neighbors.
• There was doubt on the spot of the incident as there was a blood trail outside the house.
• Narinder Singh was also accused of inflicting a head injury with an axe, but the High Court did not interfere with his acquittal.
• There was suspicion on the actual time of lodging the FIR.
• There was doubt on the exact time of death of the deceased.
• Other accused besides Achhar Singh also hit Beli Ram, and the trial court was unable to identify the definite architect of individual injuries.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh):

• The FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to contradict or corroborate its maker.
• The credibility of witnesses cannot be questioned merely because they are related to the deceased.
• Minor discrepancies or exaggerations do not discredit witness testimonies.
• Inconsistent evidence by prosecution witnesses against one accused cannot be used to give the benefit of doubt to another.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court, while exercising its powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was justified in interfering with the acquittal by the trial Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383: Cited by the appellants to argue that the High Court should not interfere with a possible view of the trial court.
• Aruvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206: Cited by the appellants to argue that the trial court’s judgment cannot be set aside merely because the appellate court’s view is more probable.
• Salim Akhtar v. State of U.P., (2003) 5 SCC 499: Cited by the appellants to argue that the axe recovered from a public place could not be held to be in Budhi Singh’s possession.
• Sheikh Hasib @ Tabarak v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4 SCC 773: Cited by the State to argue that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence.
• Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537: Cited by the State to argue that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence.
• State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629: Cited by the State to argue that the credibility of witnesses cannot be questioned merely because they are related to the deceased.
• Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525: Cited by the State to argue that minor discrepancies or exaggerations do not discredit witness testimonies.
• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381: Cited by the State to argue that inconsistent evidence against one accused cannot be used to give the benefit of doubt to another.
• Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127: Cited by the State to argue that inconsistent evidence against one accused cannot be used to give the benefit of doubt to another.
• Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] AC 462 (HL): Cited to highlight the principle that the prosecution must prove the prisoner’s guilt.
• Sangappa v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 686: Cited to highlight that there is no bar on the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415: Cited to highlight that there is no bar on the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582: Cited to highlight that there is no bar on the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 869: Cited to highlight that there is no bar on the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• Hari Chand v. State of Delhi, (1996) 9 SCC 112: Cited to highlight that the court has to make efforts to sift the grain from the chaff.
• Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189: Cited to highlight that the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record to determine if the trial court’s views were perverse.
• Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 665: Cited to highlight that a finding contrary to the evidence is “perverse”.
• Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418: Cited to highlight that a finding contrary to the evidence is “perverse”.
• Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364: Cited to highlight that a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
• Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567: Cited to highlight that a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
• Laltu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2019) 15 SCC 344: Cited to highlight that a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
• Khurshid Ahmed v. State of J&K, (2018) 7 SCC 429: Cited to highlight that a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
• Shanmugam v. State, (2013) 12 SCC 765: Cited to highlight that a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369: Cited to highlight that the prosecution has complete liberty to choose its witnesses.
• Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643: Cited to highlight the principle that the court should separate truth from falsehood in case of exaggerations.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh by the High Court.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Murugesan v. State [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the trial court’s view was not a ‘possible view’ but a perverse one.
• Aruvelu v. State [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the trial court’s findings were contrary to the evidence and thus perverse.
• Salim Akhtar v. State of U.P. [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the axe was recovered from a rural area where such tools are commonly found.
• Sheikh Hasib @ Tabarak v. State of Bihar [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court affirmed this principle, noting that the FIR was used to assess the consistency of the complainant’s testimony.
• Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court affirmed this principle, noting that the FIR was used to assess the consistency of the complainant’s testimony.
• State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court upheld this principle, stating that the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased did not discredit their testimony.
• Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court upheld this principle, noting that minor discrepancies did not negate the core truth of the witnesses’ testimonies.
• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court upheld this principle, stating that inconsistent evidence against one accused did not give the benefit of doubt to another.
• Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court upheld this principle, stating that inconsistent evidence against one accused did not give the benefit of doubt to another.
• Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle, highlighting the burden of proof on the prosecution.
• Sangappa v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the High Court’s power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• Hari Chand v. State of Delhi [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to highlight the importance of sifting the grain from the chaff in witness testimonies.
• Babu v. State of Kerala [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the High Court’s power to interfere with perverse findings of the trial court.
• Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to define a finding contrary to the evidence as “perverse”.
• Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to define a finding contrary to the evidence as “perverse”.
• Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the reliability of close relatives as witnesses.
• Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the reliability of close relatives as witnesses.
• Laltu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the reliability of close relatives as witnesses.
• Khurshid Ahmed v. State of J&K [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the reliability of close relatives as witnesses.
• Shanmugam v. State [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the reliability of close relatives as witnesses.
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to support the prosecution’s right to choose its witnesses.
• Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize the court’s duty to separate truth from falsehood in cases of exaggeration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, Netar Singh (P.W.1), Meera Devi (P.W.11), and Beli Ram (P.W.12), regarding the specific roles of Budhi Singh and Achhar Singh in the attack. The Court acknowledged exaggerations in the testimonies but emphasized that the core truth of the incident remained intact. The medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report and the doctor’s testimony, corroborated the fact that Swari Devi died due to a head injury caused by a sharp weapon, which aligned with the eyewitness account of Budhi Singh’s axe blow. The Court also considered the High Court’s reasoning in identifying the perverse findings of the trial court, which had ignored material evidence against the appellants. The Court highlighted the importance of separating truth from falsehood in witness testimonies and the need to uphold justice by convicting the guilty based on credible evidence.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the witnesses were entirely fabricating their testimonies, but rejected this interpretation because of the consistency in the core allegations against Budhi Singh and Achhar Singh, and the corroborating medical evidence. The Court also rejected the argument that the trial court’s view was a ‘possible view,’ stating that the trial court had ignored material evidence and reached a perverse conclusion.

The Court concluded that the High Court was correct in interfering with the trial court’s acquittal. The Supreme Court reasoned that despite the exaggerations and contradictions in the testimonies, the core allegations against Budhi Singh and Achhar Singh were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court emphasized that every exaggeration has an element of truth and that the court must separate truth from falsehood.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses regarding the roles of Budhi Singh and Achhar Singh.
• The medical evidence corroborating the cause of death as a head injury caused by a sharp weapon.
• The High Court’s identification of perverse findings by the trial court.
• The need to separate truth from falsehood in witness testimonies.
• The principle that a court should not allow culprits to go scot-free due to minor discrepancies or exaggerations.

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the consistent evidence against the appellants, the corroborating medical evidence, and the High Court’s correct identification of perverse findings by the trial court. The Court emphasized the importance of separating truth from falsehood in witness testimonies and ensuring that justice is not defeated by minor discrepancies or exaggerations.

The potential implications for future cases are that appellate courts have the power to re-appreciate evidence and interfere with perverse findings of lower courts. The Supreme Court also clarified that exaggerations in witness testimonies do not negate the core truth of the incident and that the courts should strive to separate truth from falsehood to ensure justice.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles.

The Court analyzed the arguments for and against the High Court’s interference with the trial court’s acquittal and concluded that the High Court was justified in its decision. The Court rejected the appellants’ arguments that the trial court’s view was a ‘possible view’ and that the High Court should not have interfered.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with perverse findings of lower courts.
• Exaggerations in witness testimonies do not negate the core truth of the incident.
• Courts must separate truth from falsehood to ensure justice.
• Consistent evidence and corroborating medical evidence are crucial in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail bonds of the appellants and directed them to undergo the remainder of their sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that appellate courts have the power to re-appreciate evidence and interfere with perverse findings of lower courts. The Supreme Court emphasized that exaggerations in witness testimonies do not negate the core truth of the incident and that the courts should strive to separate truth from falsehood to ensure justice. This case reaffirms the principles related to appellate review of acquittals and the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh, emphasizing the importance of separating truth from falsehood in witness testimonies and the appellate court’s power to interfere with perverse findings of lower courts. The Court’s decision underscores the need for a thorough analysis of evidence and the pursuit of justice in criminal cases.