Merely Because A Person Is Educated & God Fearing, It Can't Be Said That He Has Good Reputation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on Friday (13.10.2023) held that just because a person is educated and said to be God-fearing, it cannot be said that the person has a positive reputation.

“A court of law 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,” the Apex Court said.

The Apex Court was dealing with a challenge to a conviction for life imprisonment imposed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The appellant was convicted for murder and attempt to rape. The High Court had reversed the order of acquittal by the trial court. The High Court had primarily relied on the statement of PW1. The High Court was of the view that PW1 being an educated and God-fearing person, his testimony had to be accepted.

In the judgment delivered by Justice M M Sundresh and Justice J B Pardiwala overturning the High Court verdict it was observed that the conduct of the witness under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, is important to determine and prove the reputation of a witness. The Apex Court was of the view that the High Court had misconstrued the concept of reputation and blindly believed the evidence of PW1:

“Character and reputation do have an element of interconnectivity. Reputation is predicated on the general traits of character. In other words, character may be subsumed into reputation. Courts are not expected to get carried away by the mere background of a person especially while acting as an appellate forum, when his conduct, being a relevant fact, creates serious doubt. In other words, the conduct of a witness under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, is a relevant fact to decide, determine and prove the reputation of a witness. When the conduct indicates that it is unnatural from the perspective of normal human behaviour, the so-called reputation takes a back seat.”

The Apex Court held that trial court had given substantial reasons for its order of acquittal and that the prosecution had failed to established the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The Apex Court also made some significant observations on evidence in a trial in this judgment.

On Circumstantial Evidence, the Apex Court observed that “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.”

On Double Presumption, the Court said when a trial court renders its decision acquitting an accused, the presumption of innocence gains strength before the appellate court. The Court observed when the Trial Court had already given a plausible view on the matter, the High Court ought not to have replaced it with another view.

“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. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened by the decision of the trial court when he gets an order of acquittal.”

On Non-Examination Of Material Witnesses, the Court said that “Failure on the part of the prosecution in not examining 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 to such an approach would be an affront to the concept of fair play.”

The Apex Court observed that in the said case scores of witnesses had not been examined and that it was nobody’s case that witnesses were not available.

On the Effects of Absconding the Apex Court said that this alone cannot be a factor to convict an accused. In this case, the prosecution case was that the accused persons had absconded after the alleged incident.

“A subsequent conduct would be a relevant fact under Section 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. It may be because an accused may abscond as he might fear an illegal arrest," the Apex Court said.

Based on the above, setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the order of the Trial Court, the Apex Court said:

“..we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and resultantly, the order of acquittal passed by the trial court stands restored”.

Case Title: Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu V. The State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 266-267 Of 2015

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 889

Click here to read/download judgment