2007 (2) TMI 704 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Challenged the Order of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court - Scope of the Powers of Appellate Court - Offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 302 and 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') - HELD THAT - In our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. In our view, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is well founded that it is not material whether Accused No. 1 had or had not filed a complaint or he was or was not examined by a doctor, but the fact that even though it was the case of prosecution that Accused No. 1 was injured during the course of incident, prosecution witnesses tried to suppress that fact which would throw doubt as to the correctness of the case or the manner in which the incident had happened. The trial Court had also stated that it was unnatural that the prosecution witnesses and deceased Anjaniappa could have gone to Hanumanthapura Bypass at about 9.30 p.m. when a shorter route was available for going to their destination. The trial Court observed that there was inconsistency in prosecution evidence as to availability of electric light at the time of incident. The Court also noted that the knife produced before the Court as mudamal article was not the same which was used by Accused No. 8 for inflicting injury on the deceased. There was also no consistency in evidence as to injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses. Trial Court felt that the accused could get benefit of doubt, the said view cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of appellate Court are as wide as that of the trial Court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the present case, the view taken by the trial court for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence, therefore, at the most, it can be said that the other view was equally possible. But it is well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate Court. In this case, a possible view on the evidence of prosecution had been taken by the trial Court which ought not to have been disturbed by the appellate Court. The decision of the appellate Court (High Court), therefore, is liable to be set aside. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court is set aside and the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is restored. The appellants are hereby acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. They are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in any other case.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.
3. Applicability of legal principles in appeals against acquittal.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal by the trial court. The trial court had acquitted the accused based on contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, non-examination of key witnesses, and inconsistencies regarding the presence of the deceased and injured witnesses at the crime scene. The High Court, however, found that the contradictions were minor and did not affect the prosecution's case, leading to the conviction of the accused.

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, it emphasized that in cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused: the presumption of innocence and the reinforcement of this presumption by the trial court's acquittal. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should not have disturbed the trial court's acquittal as the view taken by the trial court was possible and plausible based on the evidence presented.

2. Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Credibility:

The trial court had acquitted the accused due to several reasons, including contradictions in the deposition of eyewitnesses, non-examination of key witnesses (Nagraj and Krishnaiah), and conflicting versions regarding the injury sustained by Accused No. 1. The trial court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the presence of electric light at the time of the incident and the knife used in the crime.

The High Court, on the other hand, found the contradictions and variations to be minor and held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses remained unshaken. It concluded that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court, however, agreed with the trial court's assessment, stating that the prosecution's failure to examine key witnesses and the inconsistencies in the evidence raised reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. The Supreme Court emphasized that if two views are possible based on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's acquittal.

3. Applicability of Legal Principles in Appeals Against Acquittal:

The Supreme Court discussed the legal principles governing appeals against acquittal, citing several precedents. It highlighted that the appellate court has extensive powers to review the evidence and reach its own conclusions. However, the court must bear in mind the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

The Supreme Court referenced various judgments, including Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, which established that the appellate court should give proper weight and consideration to the trial judge's views on witness credibility, the presumption of innocence, and the benefit of any doubt to the accused. The court also emphasized that the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's findings unless there are substantial and compelling reasons.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the trial court's view was possible and plausible, and the High Court should not have disturbed the acquittal. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to convict the accused was not justified, and the trial court's acquittal should be restored.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order of conviction and sentence, and restored the trial court's order of acquittal. The appellants were acquitted of the charges and ordered to be set at liberty unless required in any other case.