Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
H.D. Sundara and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 247 of 2011
Decided On : 26-09-2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, duty of Appellate Court is to find out whether verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts – Appellate Court normally ascertains whether decision under challenge is legal or illegal – But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, Appellate Court cannot examine impugned judgment only to find out whether view taken was correct or incorrect – After re-appreciating oral and documentary evidence, Appellate Court must first decide whether Trial Court's view was a possible view – Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that guilt of accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt – Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion – Appellate Court must see whether view taken by Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of evidence on record – If view taken by Trial Court is a possible view, Appellate Court cannot interfere with order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken – In many cases, Trial Judge who eventually passes order of acquittal has an occasion to record oral testimony of all material witnesses – In such cases, Trial Court has additional advantage of closely observing prosecution witnesses and their demeanour – While deciding about reliability of version of prosecution witnesses, their demeanour remains in back of mind of Trial Judge. (Paras 8 and 9)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 read with Section 149 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and hurt – Common object – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – There is no discussion about testimony of eyewitnesses for deciding whether their testimony could be believed – There are no findings recorded by High Court after reappreciating evidence – There is not even a finding to indicate that High Court considered question whether view taken by Trial Court was a possible view – Judgment does not throw any light on question who were authors of injuries sustained by deceased and injured witnesses – There is no finding as to how Section 149 of IPC gets attracted- High Court, as an Appellate Court, while hearing appeal against acquittal, has not done its duty – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 10, 11 and 15)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal preferred by accused challenging impugned judgment of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which order of their acquittal, passed by Sessions Court, was overturned. Appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
Findings of Court:
There was a fight over property between the accused and family of the complainant. After in-depth scrutiny of testimony of the eyewitnesses, for the reasons recorded, Trial Court was unable to accept their testimony. After having examined evidence of material prosecution witnesses and findings of the Trial Court, we must hold that conclusions recorded by the Trial Court were possible conclusions which could have been recorded on the basis of evidence on record.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which the order of their acquittal, passed by the Sessions Court, was overturned. The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. We may refer to a few factual aspects of the case. PW-1 (Jagadeesha) is the complainant. The complainant’s family had property in the village Hebbale. The appellant no. 1-accused no. 1-Mariyappa is PW-1’s uncle, with whom PW-1’s family was having a dispute over water. Manjunatha and Shivarama are the brothers of PW-1, who are the victims of the offence. On 29th August 1999, both entered the village Hebbale to engage labourers for plucking ginger. PW-1 followed them. On the road to the village, he found that PW-2 (Sundara) and PW-6 (Ravi) were sitting on a culvert. When he was talking to them, they heard the hue and cry from the village, and therefore, they rushed to the village and found that the appellants, who are relatives of PW-1, were holding various weapons like sticks, kathi and club and they were assaulting Manjunatha and Shivarama. It is alleged that accused no. 1-Mariyappa assaulted Shivarama by using a club. Accused no. 8-Puttappa also assaulted Manjunatha by using a club. Accused no. 7-Rajappa used a stick as a weapon of assault for assaulting Shivarama. Accused no. 5-Somashekara stabbed Shivarama by using a knife. Accused no. 6-Krishnappa assaulted Manjunatha on his head by using a club. Further, an assault was made by accused no. 3-Chandrahasa by putting a stone on the chest of Shivarama. Even accused no. 4-Rajakumara crushed the leg of Shivarama with a stone. Though PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 tried to rescue the deceased, they could not save the deceased. Accused no. 3-Chandrahasa caught hold of PW-2 (Sundara) and assaulted him by using a sickle (kathi). Accused no. 1 assaulted PW-1 with a club. Accused no. 1 also assaulted PW-1’s mother on the right hand.
3. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused. However, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has interfered and convicted the appellants as narrated above.
4. Accused no. 6 died during the pendency of the trial. The accused no. 1-appellant no. 1 and accused no. 7-appellant no. 7 died during the pendency of this appeal. Counsel for the appellants has filed I.A. No. 71417 of 2023-application for permission to file additional documents. Annexure A-1 and A-2 are copies of the Death Certificates of appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 7 respectively. The said application is allowed and the Cause Title stands modified accordingly. Formal amendment to the Cause Title be carried out accordingly. The appeal stands abated as regards these two appellants. Accused no. 2-appellant no. 2, accused no. 3-appellant no. 3, accused no. 4-appellant no. 4 and accused no. 6-appellant no. 6 have so far undergone incarceration for a period of about one year and two months. Accused no. 5-appellant no. 5-Somashekar has been incarcerated for five years and three months.
SUBMISSIONS
5. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court did not apply its mind to the evidence on record. Moreover, the High Court has not recorded any finding that the only conclusion possible was that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Without recording any such finding, the High Court has overturned the order of acquittal. Moreover, no specific finding is recorded by the High Court that every accused or any particular accused caused the death of the two deceased persons. He pointed out that there is no finding about the applicability of Section 149 of IPC. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned judgment
Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that guilt of accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible – Judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse.
Point of law : It is true that the High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal merely on formation of an opinion different than that of the trial Court. It is also trite in law that the High C....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
It is settled law that if main grounds on which lower Court has based its order acquitting accused are reasonable and plausible, and same cannot be entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished....
Point of Law : It is cardinal principle of criminal justice system that when there is satisfactory explanation for non-examination of independent witnesses, conviction can be based solely on the test....
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for clear evidence of guilt, reaffirming that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the one ....
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
