Supreme Court: What should be approach of appellate court while deciding appeal against acquittal?

 Since the impugned judgment is one of reversal of acquittal, the broad principles to be borne in mind by an appellate Court when it considers an appeal from an order of acquittal are required to be noted. In this regard, we may refer to the observations in paragraph 20 of the judgment in Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri (supra) which reads as under: {Para 11}

20. It cannot be disputed that the High Court, even though it was hearing an appeal from an order of acquittal, had full powers to review the entire evidence on the record and reach its own conclusion that the acquittal order should be set aside. But as the Privy Council pointed out in --'Sheoswarup v. Emperor', in exercising these powers the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as: (1) the views of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses; (2) presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he had been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the Accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019

Decided On: 08.10.2026

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1143/2026,2026 INSC 1099.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Procedural Violation Will Not Vitiate Seizure But Can Affect Evidentiary Value

It is true that non-compliance of the requirements of Section 100 of the Code by itself would not vitiate a seizure and the same would be an irregularity in the investigation. However, when this factor is considered cumulatively with other factors that contribute to doubting the prosecution case, the same would weigh in favour of the Appellant, especially in an appeal against acquittal. In this regard, we may refer to two decisions of this Court. In Sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh   MANU/SC/0118/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 411, it was held as under:

In respect of the search of the room occupied by the Appellant and the recovery of the bloodstained shirt and bloodstained pants aforesaid it was necessary to have at least two search witnesses as required by Section 103. Assuming that the two rickshaw-wallahs who actually witnessed the search as found by the Courts below were not respectable inhabitants of the locality, that circumstance would not invalidate the search. It would only affect the weight of the evidence in support of the search and the recovery. Hence at the highest the irregularity in the search and the recovery in so far as the terms of Section 103 had not been fully complied with would not affect the legality of the proceedings. It only affected the weight of evidence which is a matter for courts of fact and this Court would not ordinarily go behind the findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the courts below.

Similarly, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0436/1994 : 1994:INSC:96, this Court held as under:

At this juncture we may also dispose of one of the contentions that failure to comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of search and seizure even upto that stage would also vitiate the trial. This aspect has been considered in a number of cases and it has been held that the violation of the provisions particularly that of Sections 100, 102, 103 or 165 Code of Criminal Procedure strictly per se does not vitiate the prosecution case. If there is such violation, what the courts have to see is whether any prejudice was caused to the Accused and in appreciating the evidence and other relevant factors, the courts should bear in mind that there was such a violation and from that point of view evaluate the evidence on record.

In the light of the aforesaid position, weightage to be given to the articles stated to be seized from the house of the Appellant would have to be cumulatively assessed with the other material on record. {Para 19}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019

Decided On: 08.10.2026

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1143/2026,2026 INSC 1099.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Victim Also Has Right To Seek Speedy Trial Like Accused

Therefore, to say that the role of the victim is limited

to being a witness, is not correct. A victim or the legal

guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the

criminal justice system. Like the accused, she has also a

vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair

trial. Therefore, on a reading of the statutory scheme as

enumerated supra, certainly a victim has locus standi to seek

a speedy trial. She can certainly bring a petition under

Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking a direction from the High Court

to the Trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings. {Para 20}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.______OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.13468/2026)

RENUKA JAIN  Vs  THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 

Citation: 2026 INSC 1100.

Dated: 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Non-collection of tower location of the two mobiles is a serious investigational lapse?

 Lapse in collecting tower location of mobile(s) while

obtaining CDR

51. During investigation, the investigating officer was

apprised of mobile numbers of the deceased Mithilesh

Kumari (D-1) and the accused respondent. PW-19 was

produced to prove the CDR of one of the mobiles, though

both CDRs were part of police papers collected during

investigation. However, interestingly, the CDRs do not

disclose tower location of the concerned mobiles which

could have helped in pin-pointing as to whether the two

mobiles at the relevant time were in close proximity of each

other, and whether D-1’s mobile had moved to the place of

residence of the accused from where it was allegedly

recovered. Non-collection of tower location of the two

mobiles is a serious investigational lapse in the facts of the

case.

52. Further, strangely, the CDR of D-1’s mobile was

not even exhibited. Interestingly, PW-20 (i.e., the

investigating officer) does not even disclose whether D-1’s

mobile was operative or not after 31.08.2011 as per its

CDR.

53. In our view, CDRs of the two mobiles with corresponding tower locations would have been critical in revealing:

a. whether the accused’s mobile at the relevant

time was near the location where the dead

bodies of the two deceased were found; and

b. whether D-1’s mobile was active any time

after 31.08.2011; if yes, whether she received

any call after 31.08.2011; if yes, from what

location.

54. The importance of clarity on the aforesaid

questions cannot be undermined as they had the potential

to either corroborate or demolish the prosecution story.

Because if the mobile of the deceased was operative after

31.08.2011, PW-1’s statement that it was found switched

off would have been negated. Besides, its tower location

would have indicated where the person in possession of that

mobile was located. This was crucial because the

prosecution story hinges on the circumstance that the

deceased and the accused were together on 31.08.2011.

Therefore, if the tower location of the two mobiles had

disclosed that they were not in close proximity to each other

on the fateful day, some explanation would have been

required as to why it was so, when, according to the

prosecution, owners of those two mobiles were together on

the fateful day. Assuming that the accused may not have

carried her mobile to the scene of crime, tower location of

D-1’s mobile could have reflected upon the truth of the

prosecution story. Here there is no explanation by the

prosecution as to why the tower location was not collected.

In our view, lack of information in that regard is a serious

investigational lapse.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 166 of 2019

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VsANCHLA @ CHANCHLA

Author: MANOJ MISRA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1074

Dated: October 01, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page