VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The Methodology of filing an appeal against acquittal lay with the State and High Court has no advisory jurisdiction or authority to direct State to file it.

Headnote:(i) Appeal against acquittal-Power and authority to appraise the evidence in such an appeal-Limitation-Case law discussed (see paras 2, 3, 4 and 5).
       Held : While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice - so said Pattanaik, J. in Hariram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [2000 (9) SCC 136]. (Para 2)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 r/w 120B-Murder in pursuance to criminal conspiracy-Appellants acquitted-Appeal against acquittal-No appeal by State under Section 378 Cr.P.C.-High Court issuing direction to State under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to file appeal against acquittal on a different view it took on appreciation of facts-Whether High Court has any advisory jurisdiction? (No)-Whether order of the High Court sustainable in law ? (No)-Result-Appeal allowed-High Court directed to decide expeditiously afresh according to law.
       Held : Before proceeding further in the matter, be it noted herein that the High Court does not have authorisation by and under the existing legal system to exercise any advisory jurisdiction. The Government has its agencies to advise and in the event the Government feels it expedient to obtain the advise from such agency or agencies, it is for the Government to decide and not for the High Court to suggest. Direction to file appeal not only stands as an excessive user of jurisdiction but indicates exercise of advisory jurisdiction which the High Court does not possess and is unknown to law. (Para 11)
       The mandate issued by the High Court is wholly without any jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and hence our inability to record our concurrence. (Para 14)
       Held further : As noticed above it is not for the High Court but for the Government to decide as to whether there is any social evil. In the event of a positive reply it is the Government s responsibility to proceed with the matter further not for the High Court to advise. The High Court has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but has transgressed all limits of jurisdiction. This is neither fair nor reasonable and thus cannot be sustained. On the wake of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds, the order of the High Court stands set aside and quashed. The High Court would do well to deal with the pending appeal and decide the issue in accordance with the records available before the High Court expeditiously without however being inhibited by any observation of the High Court. (Paras 17 and 18)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-Leave granted

2. While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice - so said Pattanaik, J. in Hariram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [2000 (9) SCC 136].

3. Two earlier decisions of this Court ought also to be noticed in this context, namely, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 {9) SCC 225), wherein in paragraph 7 of the Report this Court observed:

"7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above-quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial court are sustainable or not."

4. The other decision, though slightly earlier in point of time, happens to be that of Tota Singh [Tota Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (1987(2) SCC 529)], wherein this court in paragraph 6 of the Report stated as below :

"6. The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW2 and PW6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the appellate court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1107

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThe Methodology of filing an appeal against acquittal lay with the State and High Court has no advisory jurisdiction or authority to direct State to file it.

Cases Referred (4)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The Methodology of filing an appeal against acquittal lay with the State and High Court has no advisory jurisdiction or authority to direct State to file it.