Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2019
Decided On : 10-04-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 323 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 162 – Murder and hurt – Common intention – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – High Court has ignored well-settled principle that order of acquittal further strengthens presumption of innocence of accused – High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that appellants have failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine defence witness and failed to establish falsity of prosecution's version – This concept of burden of proof is entirely wrong – Unless, under relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on accused or there is a reverse onus clause, accused is not required to discharge any burden – In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after prosecution discharges initial burden, burden of rebuttal may shift on accused – In absence of statutory provisions, burden was on prosecution to prove guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt – High Court's finding on burden of proof is completely erroneous – It is contrary to law of land – Statements recorded by police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness – There was no reason for High Court to overturn order of acquittal when findings of Trial Court were possible findings that could be arrived at after reappreciating evidence – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by Trial Court restored. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court can interfere with order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating evidence that only possible conclusion was that guilt of accused had been established beyond reasonable doubt – 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 – Unless Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with order of acquittal. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, who are father and son, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). By impugned judgment dated 14th December 2018, High Court interfered and converted acquittal of the appellants into a conviction for offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 and Section 323 of IPC.
Findings of Court:
Bail bonds of the appellant no.2 are cancelled. Appellant no.1 shall be forthwith set at liberty unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellants, who are father and son, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on 17th September 1996. The allegation is that the appellants assaulted one Punjabhai (the deceased) with pipes and sticks. The deceased suffered a large number of injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. By judgment dated 5th July 1997, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellants. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the respondent - State of Gujarat preferred an appeal against acquittal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 14th December 2018, the High Court interfered and converted the acquittal of the appellants into a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC. By order dated 6th January 2020, this Court directed that the present appeal be listed for hearing. By order dated 18th May 2021, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail by the first appellant was rejected by this Court. However, this Court continued the order dated 21st January 2019 by which exemption was granted to the second appellant from surrendering.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-1 Danabhai is the brother of the deceased. He had two brothers. The deceased was engaged in the business of diamond polishing. At about 9.45 pm on 17th September 1996, when PW-1 was sitting in his pan-bidi shop, one Vajsurbhai came to him by motorcycle and told him that the appellants had assaulted the deceased. On hearing this news, PW-1 went towards village Jhanjhmer. He met his uncle Ramabhai on the outskirts of the village, who was taking the deceased to the hospital by a tempo. According to the prosecution case, Karshanbhai (PW-4), Dayabhai, Jivabhai and other villagers were sitting in the tempo. The deceased was taken to the clinic of Dr. Goti at Dhola village. As per his advice, the deceased was immediately shifted to Bhavnagar in a private hospital. The deceased succumbed to the injuries in the early morning of 18th September 1996.
3. The Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of PW-4 Karshanbhai for various reasons. In the impugned judgment, the High Court noted that though, according to the case of PW-4, he received injuries on 17th September 1996 at the hands of the accused, Dr. Jagdishbhai (PW-5) deposed that PW-4 informed him that he suffered injuries on 18th September 1996. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, held that in his police statement, PW-4, had correctly stated that he was injured on 18th September 1996. Therefore, the statement he gave before the Court and the statement given by the doctor were meaningless. The High Court held that although the number of persons who witnessed the incident have not been examined, the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to falsify the prosecution's version. By the impugned judgment, after overturning the acquittal of the appellants, the High Court sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the High Court, while overturning the order of acquittal, had relied upon the police statement of PW-4 and had erroneously put the burden on the appellants to adduce evidence to show their innocence. He submitted that the entire approach of the High Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, is completely erroneous. He submitted that there is no finding recorded by the High Court that the only possible view which could be taken based on the evidence was that the guilt of the appellants had been proved. The learned senior counsel submitted that the High Court had erred in overturning the order of acquittal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently submitted that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court was duty-bound to reappreciate the evidence, and after findin
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.
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.
An inference can never be basis of conviction when testimony of a witness is not believed on cogent reasoning.
(1) If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, order would be perverse.(2) When there is a direct evidence i....
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 ....
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 ....
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or fundamentally flawed, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecu....
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
