LI Network
Published on: October 14, 2023 at 19:46 IST
The Supreme Court clarified that an individual’s education and religious faith, on their own, are insufficient grounds to determine a person’s positive reputation.
The Court emphasized that a court of law should not declare a person’s reputation solely based on the individual’s education and religious beliefs. This ruling came in a case challenging a conviction for murder and attempted rape in Himachal Pradesh.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh had imposed a life imprisonment sentence on the appellant, overturning the trial court’s acquittal.
The High Court primarily relied on the statement of a witness (PW1), considering him educated and God-fearing.
However, in the judgment delivered by Justice M M Sundresh and Justice J B Pardiwala, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s decision.
The Court pointed out that the conduct of a witness under Section 8 of the Evidence Act is essential in determining and proving the witness’s reputation. It stated that the High Court had misunderstood the concept of reputation and had unquestioningly accepted the evidence of PW1.
The Supreme Court further stated that character and reputation are interconnected, with reputation being based on a person’s general character traits. Courts should not be swayed by an individual’s background, especially in their role as an appellate forum, when the person’s conduct creates doubts.
The conduct of a witness, as a relevant fact, plays a significant role in determining their reputation.
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had valid reasons for the acquittal, and the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also made notable observations regarding evidence in trials, including the careful handling of circumstantial evidence, the strengthening of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the significance of not examining material witnesses when appropriate.
In this particular case, the Supreme Court noted that numerous witnesses were not examined, and it was not argued that witnesses were unavailable.
The Court also addressed the effect of absconding, stating that mere absconding could not be the sole factor for convicting an individual.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s acquittal, providing the appellant with the benefit of the doubt as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Case Title: Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu V. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 266-267 Of 2015