2009 (9) TMI 1056 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Offence Punishable u/s 307 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC - Conflicting judgments of the trial court and the High Court - Whether view taken by the trial court s is possible or plausible? - The appellant and other accused and the deceased belonged to the Burma colony. All of them went to the temple and came out at 2.00 p.m. after worshipping and taking food from the temple. The crowd before the temple dispersed and people started running. Accused No. 3 threw an aruval on P.W.1 After receiving the injury P.W.1 managed to run. Then accused No. 2 gave cut injury to Jambu on his head and back. Dhanapal stabbed Jambu on his chest. Accused No. 4 stabbed Jambu on his back. Thereafter all the accused ran away with their weapons. The deceased was attacked near the house of one Subramania Thevar by the side of a light post. P.W.3 at about 2.00 p.m. on 8.5.1988 saw the deceased lying dead at the scene of crime. The High Court in the impugned judgment set aside the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge and allowed the appeal filed by the State. The High Court held accused Nos. 1 2 and 4 guilty for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and imposed sentence of life imprisonment and held accused No. 3 guilty for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and imposed sentence of five years. It may be pertinent to mention that accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 died during the pendency of appeal before the High Court. The only surviving appellant herein (who was accused No. 1 before the High Court) has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. HELD THAT - There are conflicting judgments of the trial court and the High Court therefore we have carefully gone through the entire evidence de novo. The High Court in our considered view could not have shifted the burden of proof on the accused. According to the fundamental principles of the Evidence Act it is for the prosecution to have proved its own case. According to P.W.2 the occurrence took place after deceased and the witnesses came to the temple and after worshipping and taking food they came out at 2.00 p.m. The stomach of the deceased must therefore contain food particles. Whereas according to the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found that the stomach was empty. This casts serious doubt on the veracity of the testimony of P.W.2. The trial court also rejected the testimony of another eye witness P.W.3. P.W.10 Inspector of Police took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at 6.30 p.m. and on account of lack of sufficient light he did not hold the inquest but went and searched for the accused after posting two constables to guard the body of the deceased. The trial court was of the opinion that the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. The trial court was of the view that on such quality of evidence it would not be safe to record the conviction and acquitted the accused. The High Court was not justified in weaving out a different and new prosecution version. The Court is under the bounden duty and obligation to deal with the evidence as it is. No improvement or rewriting of evidence is permissible. In the instant case P.W.1 had turned hostile and P.W.3 also did not support the prosecution case. The testimony of P.W.2 is also not wholly reliable. On proper evaluation of the trial court judgment we hold that the view taken by the trial court was certainly a possible or a plausible view. It is a well settled legal position that when the view which has been taken by the trial court is a possible view then the acquittal cannot be set aside by merely substituting its reasons by the High Court. In our considered view the impugned judgment of the High Court is contrary to the settled legal position and deserves to be set aside. This Court reiterated the principles and observed that presumption of innocence of accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court could have interfered only for very substantial and compelling reasons. In Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 1987 (4) TMI 495 - SUPREME COURT the Court reiterated the same principle in the following words Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the court below has taken a view which is a plausible one the appellate court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. In Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. 2002 (3) TMI 918 - SUPREME COURT the Court repeated one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008 (7) TMI 951 - SUPREME COURT a two Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us (Bhandari J.) was a member had an occasion to deal with most of the cases referred in this judgment. The exercise of surveying relevant judgments has again been taken with the hope that the Appellate Courts would keep in view the settled legal position while dealing with the trial courts judgments of acquittals. The following principles emerge from the cases above 1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court s conclusion with respect to both facts and law but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court. 3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court s acquittal if it has very substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. 5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. On careful marshalling of the entire evidence and the documents on record we arrive at the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is certainly a possible or plausible view. The settled legal position as explained above is that if the trial court s view is possible or plausible the High Court should not substitute the same by its own possible view. In the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court in the impugned judgment was not justified in interfering with the well reasoned judgment and order of the trial court. Consequently this appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed of and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal by the Sessions Court.
2. Conviction by the High Court.
3. Evaluation of Evidence.
4. Presumption of Innocence.
5. Scope of Appellate Court's Power.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Acquittal by the Sessions Court:
The Sessions Judge, Thanjavur acquitted the appellant and other accused in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1989 of offences under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court found the evidence of P.W.2 uncorroborated and rejected the testimony of P.W.3. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The Trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied the offence. The trial court concluded that the quality of evidence was insufficient to record a conviction, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

2. Conviction by the High Court:
The High Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant and other accused. The High Court held that the learned Sessions Judge had not properly marshaled and evaluated the evidence on record. It convicted accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, imposing life imprisonment, and accused No. 3 under Section 307 IPC, imposing a five-year sentence. The High Court's judgment was challenged by the sole surviving appellant.

3. Evaluation of Evidence:
The High Court gave a new dimension to P.W.2's testimony, discarding the trial court's version. The High Court noted that P.W.1 turned hostile, but it held that this did not necessitate the acquittal of the accused. The High Court found no specific evidence that the deceased had taken food, countering the trial court's reliance on the autopsy report showing an empty stomach. The High Court's re-evaluation led to the conviction of the appellant and other accused.

4. Presumption of Innocence:
The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence, which is not weakened by an acquittal. The Court reiterated that an appellate court should interfere with an acquittal only for substantial and compelling reasons. The trial court's view, being a possible or plausible one, should not be substituted by the High Court's view unless there are substantial reasons.

5. Scope of Appellate Court's Power:
The Supreme Court reviewed the principles governing the appellate court's power in appeals against acquittal. These principles include giving due weight to the trial court's judgment, considering the presumption of innocence, and the trial court's advantage of observing witness demeanour. The appellate court should only disturb the trial court's acquittal if there are "very substantial and compelling reasons."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the trial court's well-reasoned judgment. The trial court's view was possible or plausible, and the High Court should not have substituted it with its own view. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, reinstating the trial court's acquittal.