TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................2

FACTS.......................................................................................................................................3

ISSUES......................................................................................................................................4

RULE.........................................................................................................................................4

ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT............................................................................................5

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENT.........................................................................................5

ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................6

CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................8

1|Page
INTRODUCTION

This is a detailed analysis of the case Anwar Ali v. The State of Himachal Pradesh. 1 Section
378 clearly provide the intervention of High court and its power to reverse and order of
acquittal. Sec-378 of Criminal Procedure Code had been amended in 2005 to reduce reckless
acquittals. An appeal against order of acquittal passed by session’s court will lie to the High
Court. In an appeal from acquittal the High Court has full power to review the entire evidence
upon which the order of acquittal was passed and then come to its own conclusion. Once the
High Court comes to a conclusion that view as to acquittal is sincerely unreasonable and
perverse, it could reverse it into conviction. The High Court is given the strength to
reappreciate the proof as properly in exceptional circumstances. Where there are views, one
in favour of accused needs to be preferred, however in which applicable substances aren't
taken into consideration via way of means of path trial court to reach at a view, The High
Court has an obligation to reach at accurate end via way of means of taking one of a kind
view from trial court where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an order of acquittal of
an accused character and convicted him and sentenced him to demise or to imprisonment for
existence or to imprisonment for a time period of ten years or more, he may also appeal to the
Supreme Court.

FACTS

The appellant-accused aggrieved by the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court of

reversing the order of acquittal given by the Trial Court and convicting him for offences
punishable u/s 302 read with 32, 392, 201 and 420 of the India Penal Code, has so
approached the Supreme Court. The appellant was charged with the murder of one Deepak

1
Anwar Ali v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1121 OF 2016.

2|Page
Kumar, whose body was found on 02-09-2010, near Bihali bypass road, Chandigarh. The
body was found by PW4 who informed the Bhutar Police Station, his statement was recorded
and an FIR was registered. The dead body was recognised by the deceased’s father. PW18-
the investigation officer conducted the investigation and the body was sent for post-mortem,
SHO Narayan on 05-09-2010 had received secret information about an abandoned vehicle in
Chandigarh, Investigation Officer (IO) along with other police officers went to recover the
vehicle from sector- 45C, Chandigarh. One envelope containing a mobile phone, three
photographs and documents of the vehicle were found in the jeep, the IO detected a number
from the mobile phone and from the recovered photographs the accused was searched, both
the accused were arrested on 08-09-2010. During the investigation, the statements of the
accused were recovered u/s-313 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, IO recovered crates
from Punjab; one knife and rope were recovered on 09-09-2020 allegedly used in the
commission of the crime. The prosecution before the Trial Court based its case
on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence, the Trial Court after going
through the evidence on record, did not believe the disclosure statements, neither believed the
recovery of knife and rope, and the mobile phone and photographs recovered from the jeep. It
found the prosecution to have withheld material evidence regarding sniffer dogs, and that the
recoveries were made earlier while the panchnama was made of a later date. The prosecution
was found to have failed to establish a chain of events as it was a case of circumstantial
evidence, so the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences filed against them. The
state thus filed an appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, who reversed the order of
acquittal given by the Trial Court and convicted both the accused, aggrieved by this, the
accused has approached the Supreme Court for relief. 

ISSUES

1. Whether the Trial Court properly considered the evidence of the prosecution and
rightly acquitted the accused?
2. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with and reversing the order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court?

3|Page
RULE

Sections 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance
of common intention.

Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, 18603 - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information, to screen offender.

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 18604 - Punishment for murder.

Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, 18605 - Punishment for robbery.

Section 420 of Indian Penal Code6 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737 - Persons in charge of closed place to
allow search.

Section 166 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 8 - When officer in charge of police station
may require another to issue search-warrant.

ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT

The counsel for the accused submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by
reversing the order of the Trial Court, and that the Trial Court did not err in acquitting the
accused. They stated that the knife and rope were recovered by the sniffer dogs on 02-09-
2020 and not on the basis of the statements given by the accused as claimed by the
prosecution. They also submitted that the recovery of jeep from Chandigarh, and the mobile
phone and photographs found in the jeep was doubtful. They stated that the conduct of the IO
and Bhunter police of not informing the Chandigarh police as required u/s- 166(3) of CrPC,
1973 and other lapses makes the prosecution’s case suspicious. They stated that none of
the independent witnesses were examined and neither did the IO find out call-details or check

2
S. 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3
S. 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4
S. 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5
S. 392, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6
S. 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7
S. 100, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
8
S. 166, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4|Page
the call-logs of the recovered mobile phone. They also stated that only police witnesses were
produced by the prosecution and there were other material contradictions which make the
prosecution’s case suspicious. 

ARGUMENT BY RESPONDENT

The counsel for the respondent stated that reappreciation of evidence on record is permissible
to the appellate court and so the High Court had rightly gone through the evidence,
considered the statements of the witnesses and convicted both the accused of the above-
mentioned offences. On the appellant’s contention that the independent witnesses were not
examined and the provisions of sec-100(4) of CrPC were not followed, they submitted that
the persons gathered at the time of recovery were mere spectators and did not come forward
as a witness. They referred to the case of Ronny v. State of Maharashtra (1998) where it was
held that even if witnesses are brought by the investigating agency, they cannot be
disbelieved on that ground. They further submitted that non-compliance of sec-100(4) of
CrPC can at the most be treated as defective investigation but cannot be completely
disregarded. They stated that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt the recovery of
materials, which the Trial Court disbelieved due minor contradictions, so the order of the
Trial Court warranted interference from the High Court. They submitted that the High Court
did not err in convicting the accused as the present case is of circumstantial evidence, the
primary fact to complete chain of circumstantial evidence indicating the guilt of the accused
was established. They stated that the High Court will ordinarily, give due respect to the
judgement of the Sessions Judge, but if it is found that the Sessions Judge made a wrong
assumption about an important aspect of the circumstances or relied on irrelevant evidence
and ignored relevant evidence, this rule will not apply and it can interfere with the order of
acquittal. 

ANALYSIS

In the instant case the court went through the evidence in record, the judgements of the Trial
Court and High Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. The court referred to

5|Page
the case of Bablu v. State of Kerala 9 whereby the principal to be followed for acquittal u/s-
378 of the CrPC was laid down as that the court can interfere only in exceptional cases where
there is a compelling circumstance and the impugned judgement is found to be perverse or
irrational. The appellate court should give proper consideration to the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, the acquittal order of the Trial Court supports this
presumption of innocence. The court then observed the scope of sec-378 of CrPC, and the
High Court’s interference in the order of acquittal. In Atley v. State of U.P. 10 , it has been
laid down by this Court that “it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an
order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of
course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of
the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by
the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses
whose evidence have been recorded in its presence.”   It was noted that once the High
Court entertains an appeal against an order of acquittal it is entitled to reconsider the entire
evidence on record and come to its own conclusions. Hence, the contention of the
appellant that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction was not sustained.

However, the Supreme Court accepted the fact this is a case of circumstantial

evidence. In the case of G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, 11 it was held that “there
must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused, where various links in
the chain are in  themselves complete, then the false plea or false defence may be
called into aid only to lend assurance to the court”.

The court noted that in cases of circumstantial evidence like the present case, there has to be
complete chain of circumstances and evidence from which there is no other conclusion
probable except that the crime was committed by the accused and no one else, and such
evidence should be consistent with the guilt of the accused. They noted that the High Court’s
reasoning for interfering with the order of the Trial Court was not compelling. The court
noted that PW4 and PW5 gave evidence that the materials were recovered with the help of
sniffer dogs on 02-09-2010, while the accused was arrested and his statement recorded on 08-

9
Bablu v. State of Kerala, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2001
10
Atley v. State of U.P. [AIR 1955 SC 807]
11
G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593.

6|Page
09-2010, which was neither mentioned in the FIR nor did the IO mention it in his
examination, thus the prosecution and IO were found to have supressed material facts, which
this court like the Trial Court did not find to be minor contradictions. They held that the IO
did not follow the procedure given u/s- 166 (3&4) CrPC, and also did not comply with the
provisions of sec-100(4) of CrPC, 1973, and though non-compliance of these provisions
alone is not a ground to acquit the accused, considering the overall circumstances of the case,
creates serious doubts. The court noted that the accused’s submission that he deserves to be
acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to prove motive is not a sufficient ground to reject
the prosecution’s case. The court referred to the case of Bahri v. State of Bihar 12, whereby it
was laid down that if motive is proved it will provide a link to the chain of circumstantial
evidence, but its absence cannot be ground to reject the prosecution’s case. But as held in the
case of Babu, the absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is a factor which lies
on the accused’s favour. 

CONCLUSION

Hence in the instant case it is clearly evident that Supreme Court has held that, in case of a
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the
crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to
sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis
than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

12
Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1994 AIR 2420.

7|Page