1. Prosecution for murder under Section 302 and Section 109 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code — Appeal against order of acquittal. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1261
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S.OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Chandrasekhar Patel - Appellant
Versus
Suresh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(S). 1163 of 2018 With Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2018
Decided on : 30-11-2023
Important Points
An Appellate Court cannot interfere with an acquittal if the finding is a plausible view based on the evidence, even if a contrary view is possible. Additionally, denying the accused the right to ask relevant cross-examination questions causes serious prejudice to the defense.
Subject
Criminal Law - Acquittal
Act Referred
Headnote
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Section 109 - [Section 302, Section 109] - The court re-appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and examined whether the finding recorded by the Court acquitting the accused is a possible finding. The court found that certain material questions, which were very relevant, were not allowed to be put to the witness, causing serious prejudice to the defence of the accused. The ultimate conclusion recorded by the High Court that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, is certainly a plausible conclusion which could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The Appeals concerned an incident of 6th March, 1996, where five accused were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of Siddhnath Patel. The High Court passed an order of acquittal, which was challenged in the Appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the High Court that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, is certainly a plausible conclusion which could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the re-appreciation of evidence, the relevance of disallowed questions to the witness, and the establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that not allowing relevant questions to be put to the eye-witness, who is stated to be the independent witness, causes serious prejudice to the defence of the accused. The court also highlighted that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the High Court that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, is certainly a plausible conclusion which could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution.
Final Decision: The Appeals were dismissed, and no interference was called for with the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points:
What is the standard for reviewing an acquittal on a criminal appeal?
What are the grounds for interfering with an order of acquittal?
What constitutes prejudice to the defence due to disallowed questions?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, AOR Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv. Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Shital Gupta, Adv. Ms. Lavanya Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Argha Roy, Adv. Mr. Gauravkumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.K. Vyas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajiv R. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Pathak, Adv. Mr. Yash Dixit, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nair, AOR Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv. Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Shital Gupta, Adv. Ms. Lavanya Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Argha Roy, Adv. Mr. Gauravkumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.K. Vyas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajiv R. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Pathak, Adv. Mr. Yash Dixit, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Complainant and State contend that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused, challenging the High Court's order of acquittal. (Para 4 )
3. Trial Court's disallowance of relevant cross-examination questions caused serious prejudice to the accused; prosecution evidence contained significant doubts and gaps regarding independent witnesses. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Appellate Court cannot interfere with acquittal if the finding is a possible view based on evidence, as acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals against the order of acquittal are dismissed. (Para 21 )
6. What is the standard for an Appellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
The Appellate Court must examine whether the acquittal is a possible view based on the evidence. If it is, the court cannot interfere even if a contrary view is possible, because the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal. (Para 5 )
7. What is the legal effect of a Trial Court disallowing relevant questions during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness?
Disallowing material and relevant questions to an independent witness causes serious prejudice to the defense of the accused, as it prevents the defense from discrediting the witness or demonstrating that the prosecution case is doubtful. (Para 9 , 17 , 18 )
8. How does the failure to examine available independent witnesses impact a criminal prosecution?
When the prosecution fails to record statements or examine available independent witnesses in the locality of the incident, it creates serious doubts regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution's version of events. (Para 10 , 12 , 15 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The incident, which is the subject matter of these Appeals, is of 6th March, 1996. There were five accused, who were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”). One of them was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 of the IPC. The offence alleged was of committing the murder of one Siddhnath Patel.
3. In an appeal preferred by the convicted accused, the High Court passed an order of acquittal, which is challenged by way of these two Appeals before us. Criminal Appeal No.1163/2018 is preferred by the son (Chandrasekhar Patel) of the deceased, who is PW-2, and the other Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1164/2018) is preferred by the State.
4. Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal preferred by PW-2 has taken us through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 to PW-5. He has submitted that only possible view was that the prosecution has established that the respondents have committed the offence. We have also heard the submissions of Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit, learned counsel representing the State in support of the order passed in the appeal.
5. When an Appellate Court deals with an appeal against an order of acquittal, it is no doubt true that the Appellate Court has to re-appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. After re- appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Court has to examine whether the Court which passed the order of acquittal, on the basis of the same evidence, could have recorded a finding of acquittal. In other words, the Appellate Court has to examine whether the finding recorded by the Court acquitting the accused is a possible finding, which could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. If the answer to this question is that the view taken by the Court which acquitted the accused is a possible view taken on the basis of the evidence on record, only because the Appellate Court is of the opinion that a contrary view is also possible, it cannot interfere with the order of acquittal. The reason is that the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal of the accused.
6. We have independently analyzed and appreciated the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5.
7. After having perused the evidence of PW-1, we find that during the cross-examination of the witness, the Trial Court has disallowed several questions. The presence of PW-1 at the site was attributed to the case made out by him in the examination-in-chief that he had acquired a land on rent in the village. In the cross- examination, he could not tell the khasra number of the land and the precise area of the land as well as the names of the other account-holders. In that context, some questions were attempted to be asked, which were disallowed by the Trial Court. The disallowed questions were whether the field was irrigated or not irrigated; from which place he purchased fertilizers; and whether the money received by selling soyabean and wheat was deposited in his bank account. These questions were asked as the witness in paragraph 24 of the cross-examination, after he expressed his inability to mention khasra number of the land and other particulars, claimed that he was taking the crop of soyabean and wheat. In the cross- examination, he accepted that he was a body builder and he had received championship award at the University on two occasions. In this context, a question was asked during the cross-examination when the second stab injury was caused, whether he attempted to help the deceased. Even this question was disallowed.
8. The claim of the witness was that he saw the incident while he was slowly proceeding on a moped. When the incident happened, he got up from the moped and saw the incident. Therefore, a question was put to him
