2024 Supreme(SC) 119

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Mallappa & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1162 of 2011
Decided on : 12-02-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal against acquittal – There is presumption of innocence in favour of accused, unless proven guilty – Presumption continues at all stages of trial and finally culminates into a fact when case ends in acquittal – Presumption of innocence gets concretized when case ends in acquittal.
(2) Conviction of accused – To sustain conviction, Court must form view that accused “must have” committed offence, and not “may have”.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence in favour of accused, unless proven guilty – Presumption continues at all stages of trial and finally culminates into a fact when case ends in acquittal – Presumption of innocence gets concretized when case ends in acquittal – Order of acquittal is open to appeal – However, power of High Court to re-appreciate evidence is a qualified power, especially when order under challenge is of acquittal – Decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion – What is required is an illegality or perversity. (Paras 24 and 25)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon – ‘Two-views theory’ has been judicially recognized by Courts and it comes into play when appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views – However, controversy is to be resolved in favour of accused – If view of Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for High Court to convict accused by reappreciating evidence. (Para 26)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – In normal circumstances, where a testimony is duly explained and inspires confidence, Court is not expected to reject testimony of an interested witness, however, when testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with supporting evidence (wound certificate, for instance), Court is bound to sift and weigh evidence to test its true weight and credibility – Trial Court had reached its decision after a thorough appreciation of evidence – High Court went on to reverse decision by taking its own view on a fresh appreciation of evidence – High Court did so without recording any illegality, error of law or of fact in decision of Trial Court – Same was not permissible – Setting aside an order of acquittal, which signifies a stronger presumption of innocence, on a mere change of opinion is not permissible – A low standard for turning an acquittal into conviction would be fraught with danger of failure of justice – Prosecution has failed to complete chain of circumstances – Contradictions between oral testimonies and medical examination reports, failure to seize essential materials from scene of crime, failure to explain mode of conveyance while going from one place to another, are some of deficiencies in chain of circumstances – No infirmity in order of Trial Court and same stands restored – Appellants acquitted from all charges levelled upon them. (Paras 33, 34, 37 and 39)

(D) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – In an appeal, as much as in a trial, appreciation of evidence essentially requires a holistic view and not a myopic view – Appreciation of evidence requires sifting and weighing of material facts against each other and a conclusion of guilt could be arrived at only when entire set of facts, lined together, points towards only conclusion of guilt – Appreciation of partial evidence is no appreciation at all, and is bound to lead to absurd results – Appreciation of evidence is core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary – In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, Appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in decision of Trial Court. (Paras 35 and 36)

(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235 – Conviction of accused – To sustain conviction, Court must form view that accused “must have” committed offence, and not “may have” – Distinction between “may have” and “must have” is a legal distinction and not merely a grammatical one. (Para 38)

Facts of the case:

Eight accused persons were tried and acquitted by Trial Court. High Court agreed with acquittal of all accused persons, except three appellants here who stood convicted for murder.

Findings of Court:

High Court had erred in reversing decision of acquittal, without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or error in reasoning of Trial Court. Even on a fresh appreciation of evidence, we find ourselves unable to agree with findings of High Court.

Result : Appeals disposed of.