Back
2008(4) Supreme 524
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Syed Peda Aowlia — Petitioner
versus
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2001
Decided on : 13-06-08
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 378 (1) and (3) – Appeal against acquittal – There is no embargo on appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based – Generally, order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal – The golden thread which runs through web of administration of justice in criminal cases is 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 – The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented-A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent – In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not – The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so – If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (Para 4)
(AIR 1973 SC 2622), (1996 (4) Supreme 167), (2000 (3) Supreme 320), (2003 (7) Supreme 152), (2003 (5) Supreme 508,. (2003 (7) Supreme 17) ,(2006 (10) SCC 617), (2002 (2) Supreme 567)]relied upon.
Facts of the Case :
Accused persons five in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of ‘IPC’.Trial Court on analyzing evidence held that prosecution had not been able to establish its accusations and accordingly directed acquittal. On, State appeal, High Court while allowing appeal so far as appellant was concerned dismissed appeal of State so far as other accused persons were concerned.
2. Present appeal has been filed by appellant against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Principle to be followed by appellate Court considering appeal against judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.Held High Court not applied its mind to various aspects and position in law relating to scope for interference in appeal against an order of acquittal.In view of said circumstances, impugned order set aside and matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law only in respect of appellant. Apeal was allowed to said extent.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State so far as present appellant is concerned while upholding the acquittal of other accused persons. The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur had directed acquittal of all the five accused persons who faced trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The trial Court on analyzing the evidence had found that the prosecution has not been able to establish its accusations and accordingly directed acquittal. The State filed an appeal in terms of Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). The High Court by the impugned order allowed the appeal so far as the present appellant is concerned while dismissing the appeal of the State so far as the other accused persons are concerned.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has not discussed the evidence of the witnesses and has come to abrupt conclusions about the acceptability of the evidence.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that though the High Court has not analysed the evidence in detail, its conclusions are not erroneous.
4. It is not necessary to go into the factual position in detail as we find that the appeal filed by the State has been disposed of in perfunctory manner.
5. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is 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. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1 (2002 (2) Supreme 567)]. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra,2 (AIR 1973 SC 2622), Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat,3 (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana,4 (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.,5 (2003 (7) Supreme 152), State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh,6 (2003 (5) Supreme 508, State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr.,7 (2003 (7) Supreme 17) and V.N. Ratheesh v. State of Kerala,8 (2006 (10) SCC 617).
6. The conclusions of the High Court read as follows :
“It is true that there is some delay in reaching a copy of FIR to the residence of the Magistrate, but it cannot be said that it is inordinate delay. According to the version of PW-1 and also the version of PWs 14 and 15 the first information was given by PW-1 at about 10.30 a.m. and on the strength of which PW-14 registered the case against the accused. The evidence of PW-15 shows that he got a copy of FIR at ab
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
