Courts cannot assume witness has good reputation just because he is educated or God-fearing: Supreme Court

Courts cannot assume that a witness has good reputation only because he is educated and God-fearing, the Supreme Court recently said while setting aside the conviction of a man in a murder case [Harvinder Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh]. .A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala observed that courts of law cannot form opinions on such notions.."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 ... 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," the bench stated in its October 13 judgment. .The top court explained that it is the "conduct of a witness" under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act that is relevant to determining a witness' reputation."When the conduct indicates that it is unnatural from the perspective of normal human behaviour, the so-called reputation takes a back seat," the Supreme Court added. .The Court was hearing an appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that had overturned the trial court's acquittal of a murder accused. The High Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. To do so, the High Court relied on the statement of a prosecution witness after noting that the witness was an educated and God-fearing person..The Supreme Court criticised this approach. In its judgment, the top court also distinguished between character and reputation. "A 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 but both are distinct and different. Reputation thus forms part of internal facts and therefore 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," the Court explained..The Court went on to opine that the High Court's approach in dealing with the case, which involved only circumstantial evidence, was not correct."The High Court after holding that a homicide had occurred, blindly placed reliance upon the evidence of PW1," the Supreme Court observed. .The Court added that the mere fact that the accused had absconded after the death of the victim cannot be a factor while deciding on whether to convict him.The top court proceeded to set aside the High Court's verdict and acquitted the accused, on finding that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. .Advocate Mansoor Ali appeared for the accused, one Harvinder Singh.Advocates Rishi Malhotra, Jaydip P, and Mohan Lal Sharma represented the Himachal Pradesh government..[Read Judgment]