1. Homicide and assault — Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 324 IPC — Appeal against reversal of acquittal by High Court. (Para 5 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1662
1997(1) Supreme 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi & M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Sri Jinnat Mia @ Jinu Mia & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Assam -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 1993
Decided on 12-12-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Shahid Rizvi, Sushil Kumar Jain, Ajay Bhalla, Ms. Abha, R. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sunil Kumar Jain, Vijay Hansaria, J.K. Bhatia, Advocates for M/s. Jain Hansaria & Co. Advocates.
Important Points
An appellate court has full power to review evidence and reverse an order of acquittal if the trial court's findings are unreasonable or perverse, provided the appellate court records specific reasons why the acquittal was not justified based on a comprehensive review of the evidence.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL -Scope-No interference is to be made unless approach made by trial Court to consider evidence was vitiated by manifest illegality or conclusion arrived was perversed. (Paras 2 to 4)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 324/302/34-Appellants were acquitted by trial Court-High Court held reasons reached by trial Court unsustainable and convicted all appellants-Appeal-Appellants entered the house of deceased in mid night and hacked him with dangerous weapons-Wife of deceased, when tried to save her husband, suffered some injuries-Trial Court repeated arguments of defence counsel and did not analyse the matter itself-discrepancy in statement of eye witness about the source of light as "Chaki" or "lamp" in the room at the time of incident was insignificant-She was got examined for her injuries soon after the occurrence-Evidence of another witness PW7 corroborated evidence of eye witness-When evidence of eye witness was found acceptable, no merit in contention that other persons were not examined -Delay of one day in forwarding report to Magistrate did not vitiate prosecution case. (Paras 10 to 16)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal despite the absence of perversity in the trial court's findings. (Para 1 , 8 )
3. The trial court's findings were unreasonable and merely repeated defense arguments; the eye-witness testimony was credible and not vitiated by minor discrepancies or delay. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. An appellate court has full power to review evidence and reverse an acquittal if the trial court's conclusion is unreasonable or unsustainable. (Para 2 , 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 16 )
6. What is the scope of an appellate court's power in an appeal against acquittal?
An appellate court has full power to review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusion. It must consider all record matters and the trial court's reasons, and express the reasons leading it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. Does a minor discrepancy in a witness's description of an object affect the credibility of their testimony?
Insignificant discrepancies, such as using different terms for a lamp, do not make eye-witness evidence incredible or unacceptable if the overall testimony remains credible and the circumstances support the identification. (Para 10 )
8. Is the failure to examine all witnesses mentioned in a chargesheet fatal to the prosecution?
The failure to examine other persons mentioned in the chargesheet or FIR is not detrimental to the prosecution if the evidence of the available eye-witness is found to be acceptable and credible. (Para 14 )
9. Can prior legal proceedings under Section 107 CrPC be used to reject eye-witness testimony as motivated?
The existence of prior proceedings under Section 107 CrPC against the accused is not a sufficient ground to reject the evidence of an eye-witness. (Para 13 )
10. Does a delay in forwarding the police report to the Magistrate vitiate the prosecution's case?
A short delay in forwarding the report does not necessarily vitiate the prosecution case; the impact of such delay depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT
Srinivasan, J.-The main contention of the appellants is that the High Court has chosen to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the trial judge when the latter is not perverse or wholly unreasonable. In support of the same the decision in Tota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab1 is cited. A Bench of two judges has held that in an appeal against acquittal, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order unless the approach made by the lower court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is liable therefore to be characterised as perverse. It has also been held that where two views are possible and the view taken by the court below is plausible, the appellate court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is erroneous.
2. The power of the appellant court in an appeal against an order of acquittal was the subject of a decision of three member Bench of this court as early as in Sanwat Singh & Others v. State of Rajasthan2. The Bench considered the matter in detail and said :-
"The foregoing discussion yields the following results : (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded: (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup s case, 61 Ind. App. 398 : (AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) ) afford a correct guide for the appellate court s approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) "substantial and compelling reasons", (ii) "good and sufficiently cogent reasons", and (iii) "strong reasons", are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified".
3. In that case, the court also dealt with the scope of Articles 136 of the Constitution and pointed out that the practice of the court is not to interfere on questions of fact except in exceptional cases when the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the court.
4. Recently this Bench had occasion to refer to the ruling in Betal Singh v. State of M.P3, and point out that the High Court has full powers in an appeal to review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion unless the matter depended on the demeanour of the witness. (See judgment dated 9.12.1997 in Civil Appeal No. 888 of 1996, Rajendra Mahton v. State of Bihar).
5. Bearing the above principles in mind, we shall now consider the facts of the present case. The prosecution case was the following :
On 2.6.1987 after mid night the appellants entered the bed room in which Chand Mia, the deceased was sleeping with his wife Jamuna Khatun, the complainant and killed him by hacking him with ram dao and other dangerous weapons. When the complainant tried to save her husband, she suffered some injuries. She went to the police station situated at a distance of 4 kilo metres by walk and presented a complaint written with the help of PW 4, a petition-writer around 2.15 A.M. She had mentioned the names of the appellants in the F.I.R. She was sent to a dispensary near the police station for treatment for her injuries. After investigation, the appellants stood charged with offences under Sections 324/459/302/34 I.P.C.
6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. The doctor who treated the complainant for her injur
