IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302, 324 rw/s 149, 143, 147 and 148—Murderous assault—Acquittal by trial Court—High Court reversed order of trial Court—Justifiability—Accused 2, 8 and PW8 were running a Chit Transaction in which successful members were given articles like vessels etc.—Dispute on refusal to exchange copper vessel to one ‘N’, winner of the draw—Allegations that accused Nos. 1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with weapons attacked PWs 2 to 4—Prosecution case that when quarrel was going on and PWs 2 to 4 were injured, deceased came forward and intervened when A8 allegedly stabbed him on left side of his chest—Trial Court acquitted accused considering contradictions and discrepancies in deposition of eye-witnesses, non-examination of ‘N’ who was the root cause of quarrel and conflicting version as to injury sustained by accused—It was held that in facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be conclusively established that the prosecution had proved its case against accused—Trial Court held that accused were entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly were acquitted—View taken by the trial Court for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible—Whether High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court—(No)—If two views are possible on 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.
       Held : For acquitting the accused and extending them the benefit of doubt, the trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to examine certain persons who could have unfolded the genesis of the prosecution case. The trial Court indicated that the root cause of the quarrel was refusal to exchange copper vessel (Kolaga) to Nagraj, winner of the draw, but he was not examined. Likewise, Krishnaiah, son of Oblaiah, who accompanied injured (deceased) Anjaniappa to the hospital, was not brought before the Court. Though it is in evidence that Accused No. 1 Chandrappa was injured and was also taken to the hospital alongwith Anjaninappa, some witnesses had denied the fact as to injuries sustained by the Accused No. 1. The High Court did not give much weight to the said circumstance observing that Accused No. 1 was neither examined by a doctor nor a cross-complaint was filed by him against the prosecuting party. 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 Anjaninappa 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.(Para 36)
       In our view, if in the light of above circumstances, the 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.(Para 37)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—General principles regarding powers of Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
       Held : 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. (Para 35)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence in an appeal against acquittal and may reach its own conclusions on facts and law (!) (!) . - In acquittal appeals, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused: presumption of innocence and reinforced by the trial court’s acquittal (!) . - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal (!) (!) . - The decision discusses established authorities (Sheo Swarup, Nur Mohammad, Sanwat Singh) about standards for interference and cautions appellate courts to provide reasons for reversal (!) (!) (!) . - The case applies these principles to uphold setting aside an appellate reversal and restore acquittal, concluding the High Court should not disturb a plausible trial court view when two views are possible (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment ultimately allows the appeal, overturning the High Court conviction and restoring Trial Court acquittal (appellate reversal under scrutiny) (!) .

What is the scope of appellate power in an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 378 CrPC?

What are the principles governing when an appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s acquittal in crimes under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 302, and 324 read with 149?

What standards determine whether two reasonable views on evidence exist such that the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal?

JUDGMENT

Hon. C.K. Thakker, J.—The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated November 24, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 1008 of 1999 whereby it set aside the order dated July 14, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1991 acquitting the accused (appellants herein) of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that Accused No. 2, Somashekhara, Accused No. 8, Thammaiah and PW 8 Krishnaiah were running a Chit Transaction in which successful members were given articles like vessels, watches, sarees, cloth-pieces, etc. The said transaction was conducted once a week in the shop of PW 8 Krishnaiah and also at Kollapuradamma Temple at Hanumanthapura. It is the case of the prosecution that on October 30, 1989, one such transaction was held at about 5.30 p.m. in which one Nagaraj, the successful bidder was given a copper vessel (Kolaga). Nagaraj returned the vessel with his maternal uncle as it was old and demanded a new vessel. But the request was refused by the proprietors of the Chit Transaction. It is further the prosecution case that at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day, i.e. October 30, 1989, near Hanumanthapura Bypass, when PW1 Veerabhadraiah along with PWs 2, 3 and 4 (Chikkanna, Rudramurthy and Puttiah) was proceeding, the Accused Nos. 1 to 8 who had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and were armed with weapons like, knife, reapers and stones attacked PWs 2 to 4. The accused caused injuries to all the three persons. It is alleged that when the quarrel was going on and PWs 2 to 4 were injured, deceased Anjinappa came forward and intervened and went ahead to stop the quarrel. Accused No. 8 Thammaiah took out a button knife from his pocket and stabbed Anjinappa on the left side of his chest, due to which Anjinappa slumped and fell on the ground. Complainant Veerabhadraiah along with one Krishnaiah, s/o Oblaiah carried Anjinappa in an autorickshaw to the hospital. On the way to hospital, Anjinappa breathed his last. The dead body of Anjinappa was then taken to the General Hospital, Tumkur. The accused persons after committing assault, threw the clubs and rippers at the spot and ran away. At about 11.30 p.m., PW 13 Madhukar Musale, Circle Inspector of Police, Tumkur received an information about the incident of rioting that took place at Hanumanthapura. On being intimated by PSI, PW 7 A.R. Shariff about the rioting and the injured being admitted to General Hospital at Tumkur, PW 13 went to the hospital and learnt that Anjinappa had died and the other three injured persons were taking treatment. It is alleged that PW 1, Veerabhadraiah, who was present in the hospital, was questioned by PW13. The information given by him was recorded in writing as per Ex. P-1 as complaint and was registered as Crime No. 86 of 1989 for offences punishable Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused No. 7 Tukaraiah died during the pendency of the case and the trial abated against him.

3. Inquest over the dead body of deceased Anjinappa was done and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW 11 Dr. Hanumakka who conducted the postmortem opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature. She found a punctured wound over the left 3rd inter costal space extending from medial edge of the areola of left nipple obliquely downwards and medially 2" x 2" size with clean cut margin and fat protruding through the wound the depth of which was 3½ inches. Likewise, injuries to PWs 2 to 4 were also proved by PW 12, Dr. Chandrasekhara Prasad.

4. After completion of investigation, all the accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PWs 1 to 4 were por

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 189

IMPORTANT POINTIf 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.

What is the scope of appellate power in an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 378 CrPC?

What are the principles governing when an appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s acquittal in crimes under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 302, and 324 read with 149?

What standards determine whether two reasonable views on evidence exist such that the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal?

Cases Referred (16)

IMPORTANT POINT
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.