NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, during a verdict, has said it cannot be said that a person's reputation is good merely because he is "educated and God-fearing".
The observation came in a judgment when a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and J B Pardiwala was dealing with a plea against a conviction for life imprisonment imposed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court for murder and attempt to rape. "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," stated the order.
Reversing the HC order which was passed against a trial court order, the apex court held that the High Court had "misconstrued the concept of reputation and blindly believed the evidence" of a prosecution witness, on whom the high court primarily relied, saying "being a natural, educated and God-fearing person, his testimony has to be accepted."
While admitting that "reputation is indeed a fact" under the Evidence Act, the top court pointed out that reputation "forms part of internal facts and therefore it is required to be proved in the form of the opinion of persons who form it accordingly."
It was observed that Character and reputation do have an element of interconnectivity. Reputation is predicated on the general traits of character. In other words, the 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 order stated.
"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 order read.
The trial court has given substantial reasons for arriving at its conclusion. One has to keep in mind that it is the prosecution who has to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the bench stated.
