2022 (1) TMI 1295 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of respondent accused under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - evidences have not been appreciated properly - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The High Court has only made general observations on the deposition of the witness examined. However, there is no reappreciation of the entire evidence in detail which exercise ought to have been made by the High Court while dealing with the judgment and order of acquittal. The High Court ought to have reappreciated the entire evidence on record as it was dealing with a first appeal. Being the first appellate court, the High Court was required to reappreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it is found that decision of the High Court is totally erroneous as it has ignored the settled legal position. The High Court has not at all discussed and/or reappreciated the entire evidence on record. In fact, the High Court has only made the general observations on the deposition of the witnesses examined. However, there is no reappreciation of entire evidence on record in detail, which ought to have been done by the High Court, being a first appellate court. Under the circumstances on the aforesaid ground alone, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is to be remanded back to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits being mindful of the observations made. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal before the High Court is ordered to be restored to its original file.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
2. High Court's dismissal of the appeal without reappreciation of evidence.
3. Legal principles for appellate courts in cases of acquittal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act:
The learned Special Court acquitted the respondents for offences under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The victim, dissatisfied with this acquittal, appealed to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal with a brief judgment, stating that the testimony of P.W.2 was not reliable and lacked corroboration, thus upholding the trial court's decision.

2. High Court's dismissal of the appeal without reappreciation of evidence:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's dismissal of the appeal was not in accordance with legal standards. The High Court's judgment was a one-page order that did not reappreciate the entire evidence or provide detailed reasoning. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court, as the first appellate court, should have reappreciated the entire evidence and the reasoning given by the trial court. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court's general observations on the deposition of witnesses were insufficient.

3. Legal principles for appellate courts in cases of acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principles for appellate courts in dealing with appeals against acquittals. It cited several precedents, including Umedbhai Jadavbhai Vs. The State of Gujarat and Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that the High Court must reappreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. The appellate court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal lightly and must consider whether the trial court's findings were perverse or unsustainable. The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court should give due importance to the trial court's opinion, especially when it had the advantage of observing the witnesses' demeanor.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment unsustainable as it did not comply with the settled legal position. The High Court failed to reappreciate the entire evidence in detail, which was necessary for a first appellate court. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits, bearing in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court. The High Court was also requested to expedite the disposal of the appeal.