Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 376, 511, 454, 380 r/w s.34 – Murder and attempt to rape – High Court convicted the appellant for murder and attempt to rape, setting aside the order of acquittal by the trial court – Correctness:

Held: Trial court gave substantial reasons for arriving at its conclusion – However, the High Court was persuaded by the homicidal death of the deceased while ignoring multiple findings rendered by the trial court – High Court after holding that a homicide had occurred, blindly placed reliance upon the evidence of the informant and misconstrued the concept of reputation and blindly believed his evidence – Furthermore, the statement of one of the witness that there was no prior enmity – Also non-availability of the fingerprint report and non-examination of the witnesses though the witnesses were available – Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, thus, the appellant entitled to the benefit of doubt – Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Para 26, 28-29, 31]

Evidence Act ,1872 – s.3 – Fact – Reputation, forming part of facts – Connectivity between reputation and character – Evidentiary value of person’s reputation:

Held: Reputation is indeed a fact – Reputation has to be seen from the point of view of an identifiable group while character is what a person really is – Character is to be formed while reputation is to be acquired – Character may lead to formation of one’s reputation – Character and reputation do have an element of interconnectivity but both are distinct and different – Reputation thus forms part of internal facts which arise through thoughts and feelings such as love, anger, fear, hatred and intention etc and thus, it is required to be proved in the form of opinion of persons who form it accordingly – When reputation is to be taken as a relevant fact, its evidentiary value becomes restrictive and limited – It is indeed a weak piece of evidence when becomes relatable to a fact in issue – Court cannot declare the reputation of a person based upon its own opinion merely because a person is educated and said to be God-fearing, that by itself will not create a positive reputation – Courts are not expected to get carried away by the mere background of a person especially when his conduct, being a relevant fact, creates serious doubt – Conduct of a witness is a relevant fact to decide, determine and prove the reputation of a witness. [Para 16-18]

Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance upon:

Held: One has to be circumspect and cautious while undertaking the exercise of linking the evidence available – Courts should not lose sight of the fact that such evidence should unerringly lead and point out the accused alone, of course, on the facts of each case. [Para 22]

Evidence – Double Presumption – Presumption of innocence:

Held: When the view of the trial court, which had the benefit of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses, is both a possible and plausible one, it shall not be replaced by yet another one – Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened by the decision of the trial court when he gets an order of acquittal. [Para 23]

Witnesses – Material witnesses – Non-examination of:

Held: Non-examination of a witness, though material, by itself would not vitiate the trial – However, when facts are so glaring and with the witnesses available, particularly when they are likely to give a different story, the Court shall take adequate note of it – When a circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Court by the defense and the Court is convinced that a prosecution witness has been deliberately withheld, as it in all probability would destroy its version, it has to take adverse notice – Anything contrary would be an affront to the concept of fair play. [Para 24]

Evidence – Effect of absconding:

Held: Subsequent conduct would be a relevant fact u/s. 8 of the Evidence Act - However, such a fact has to be proved – Mere absconding by itself cannot constitute a sole factor to convict a person because an accused may abscond as he might fear an illegal arrest. [Para 25]