Supreme Court: Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Accused If Court Discarded Entire Prosecution Case
The Supreme Court allowed a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused woman challenging the Judgment of the High Court which upheld the conviction against all three accused persons including her son, in a murder case.
The Supreme Court reiterated that an Appellate Court can extend the benefit of acquittal to a non-appealing accused if it has discarded the entire case of the prosecution.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused challenging the Judgment of the High Court which upheld the conviction against all three accused persons, in a murder case.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, "... the entire case of the prosecution having being discarded, the benefit of this judgment deserves to be extended to the non-appealing accused Rajbir (accused No.2), who has unfortunately not preferred an appeal to assail his conviction"
AOR Nirmal Chopra represented the Appellant/Accused while AAG Vishal Khattar represented the Respondent/State.
Case Background
As per the prosecution case, the deceased man’s father (informant) had five sons who had constructed two houses. The deceased resided with his family and the Appellant-accused was a widow who was holding illegal possession of the inner room of deceased’s house, whereas the outer room was retained by him for his own occupation. Many times, he would stay in the said room during night and allegedly he was in an illicit relationship with accused no.3 who was already married to another man. She was on visiting terms with accused. In December 1997, in the morning, the deceased’s wife approached the informant saying that her husband had left 3 days back for a city and thereafter, he did not return home.
While searching him, the informant reached the water works tank where he learned about the recovery of a dead body and identified it as that of his son i.e., deceased. The body bore multiple injuries inflicted by sharp-edged weapons and the informant suspected that the accused and her son (accused no.2) who are in illegal occupation of the house owned by deceased together with accused no.3 and some unknown persons had murdered his son because he wanted to get the house vacated due to which accused bore a grudge against him. Hence, an FIR was registered against the accused persons. The Trial Court convicted all and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Appellant filed an Appeal which was dismissed by the High Court and being aggrieved, she approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove even a single of these so-called incriminating circumstances so as to justify the conviction of the accused-appellant for the charge of murdering Balwant (deceased).”
The Court remarked that the Trial Court as well as the High Court in appellate jurisdiction grossly erred while appreciating the evidence and holding the testimony of the witnesses who gave evidence on the last seen together theory and the extra-judicial confession theory to be reliable.
“Both the Courts have, despite the negative FSL report, relied upon the so-called incriminating recoveries. Manifestly, the reliance placed by the Courts below on the recoveries is misplaced and unjustified. Furthermore, the negative FSL report makes the recoveries inconsequential”, it added.
The Court noted that the Judgments rendered by the High Court and Trial Court do not stand to scrutiny.
“The appellant-accused herein is acquitted of the charges. She is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case”, it directed.
The Court further took note of the fact that the Appellant accused as well as her son (accused no.2) were both provided legal aid counsel in the Appeal before the High Court, manifestly for the reason of their poor financial status.
“Rajbir (accused No.2) has not even preferred an appeal against the judgment of the High Court. However, while discussing the case of accused-appellant Shanti Devi, we have found that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient and lacks credibility so as to form a complete chain of incriminating circumstances warranting the affirmation of the prosecution case”, it also said.
Conclusion
The Court, therefore, held that the entire case of the prosecution having being discarded, the benefit of the Judgment deserves to be extended to the non-appealing accused i.e., Appellant’s son, who unfortunately not preferred an Appeal to assail his conviction.
“Thus, we give the benefit of our conclusions to Rajbir (accused No.2) as well and also acquit him of the charges. He shall be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case”, it concluded. In this regard, the Court referred to the Judgment in the case of Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) in which it was observed as under –
“Where the Court finds that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious contradictions, is unreliable, is ex facie neither cogent nor true and the prosecution has failed to discharge the established onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to return the finding of acquittal and even suo moto extend the benefit to a non-appealing accused as well, more so, where the Court even disbelieves the very occurrence of the crime itself. Of course, the role attributed to each of the accused and other attendant circumstances would be relevant considerations for the Court to apply its discretion judiciously. There can be varied reasons for a non-appealing accused in not approaching the appellate Court. If, for compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused.”
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the accused along with her son (non-appealing accused).
Cause Title- Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 987)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Nirmal Chopra, Advocates Aaina Verma, and Amit Kumar.
Respondent: AAG Vishal Khattar, AOR Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Drishti Rawal, Drishti Saraf, Sarthak Shrivastava, and Mayur Goyal.
