2019 Supreme(SC) 430

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
VIJAY MOHAN SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA – RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 1656 of 2013
Decided on : 10-04-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Trial Court cannot acquit accused by going against mass of evidence.
(2) Even in case where High Court in appeal against order of acquittal interfered with order of acquittal without specifically considering reasons arrived at by trial court and without specifically observing that reasons are perverse, Apex Court can still maintain order of conviction passed by High Court.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 read with 34, 498A, 304B read with 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3,4 and 6 – Dowry killing – Cruelty and common intention – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – There is dying declaration given by deceased which has been proved and supported by independent witnesses – It has been established and proved by examining medical officer and even medical officer certified that patient was conscious and coherent and fit state of mind to give statement – Dying declaration involving appellant came to be established and proved by prosecution, by examining doctor as well as metropolitan magistrate who record dying declaration – Despite overwhelming evidence in form of medical evidence as well as dying declaration and deposition of metropolitan magistrate, trial Court discarded the same on some minor contradictions/omissions – Trial Court gave undue importance to initial statement of victim while giving history to doctor when she was admitted and when she gave history of accidental burns while cooking in kitchen – Approach of trial Court was patently erroneous and conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable – It is not a case where two reasonable views on examination of evidence are possible and so the one which supports accused should be adopted – High Court has not committed any error in holding appellant-original accused no.1 guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC – Interference by High Court in appeal against acquittal of appellant and recording finding of his conviction for offence under Section 302 of IPC, on consideration of evidence, is justified – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8, 9, 13 and 14)

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal – Even in case where High Court in appeal against order of acquittal interfered with order of acquittal without specifically considering reasons arrived at by trial court and without specifically observing that reasons are perverse, Apex Court can still maintain order of conviction passed by High Court if Apex Court is satisfied itself that approach of trial court in dealing with evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and judgment of appellate court is free from those infirmities – High Court is entitled to reappreciate entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion – However, High Court would not be justified in interfering with order of acquittal solely on the ground on reappreciation of entire evidence that two views are possible. (Para 12)

       Facts of Case:

       Dowry death. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with order of acquittal passed by trial Court acquitting accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 498A, 304B read with 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3,4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, State of Karnataka preferred appeal before High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga being Criminal Appeal No. 402/2008. On reappreciation of entire evidence on record and by giving cogent reasons in detail, by impugned judgment and order, High Court has set aside order of acquittal passed by trial Court so far as acquitting original accused No.1 – husband of deceased is concerned and has held him guilty for offences punishable under Section 302, 498A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

       Findings of Court:

       On reappreciation of entire evidence on record, this is not a case where two reasonable views are possible and so one which supports accused should be adopted. Findings recorded by trial court while acquitting accused are perverse and approach of trial court was patently erroneous and conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.