Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Ramesh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 103(1) read with 190] – Murder and rioting – Common object – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – No independent witness was found by Investigating Officer except for related witnesses, who were projected as eyewitnesses to prove prosecution’s case – Statements of so-called eyewitnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. one month after date of incident – Motive attributed to accused stood diluted – Once Trial Court found no evidence to convict accused, burden was upon High Court, while reversing the judgment, to record clear findings in relation to each of charges and, more particularly, charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC – However, no such exercise was undertaken by High Court – In an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for High Court to take a contrary view about credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for Trial Court to reject their testimony – Conviction of Appellants on all charges set aside. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were tried for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Trial Court acquitted all five of them of all charges. By impugned judgment dated 29.03.2011, Division Bench of High Court reversed acquittal judgment passed by Trial Court and held all five accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B and 302 read with 149 IPC.
Findings of Court:
Brusque approach of High Court in dealing with appeal, resulting in conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by Trial Court giving them benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
An appeal against an acquittal requires the High Court to provide clear and convincing reasons for reversing the trial court's decision. Merely taking a contrary view on witness credibility without detailed analysis is insufficient (!) (!) .
When the trial court has found no evidence to convict, the appellate court must specifically record its own findings on each element of the charges, particularly complex charges such as conspiracy. Failure to do so undermines the validity of the reversal (!) (!) .
The appellate court has broad authority to re-evaluate and reconsider the evidence, but it must do so with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the trial court’s findings, especially when the trial court has expressed doubt or found no evidence (!) (!) .
In cases of conflicting witness testimonies, the appellate court should prefer the trial court’s assessment unless there are compelling reasons to differ. If multiple reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, the appellate court should uphold the trial court’s findings of fact (!) .
The credibility of eyewitnesses can be seriously questioned if their statements are recorded after a significant delay, if there are contradictions in their testimonies, or if their conduct during the incident suggests a lack of intervention. Such discrepancies weaken the prosecution’s case (!) (!) .
The failure of witnesses to intervene or inform the police during the incident, along with inconsistencies in the timing of their statements and recorded evidence, can lead to doubts about their reliability and the prosecution’s version of events (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The burden on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains paramount. When the trial court has not found sufficient evidence, the appellate court should exercise caution before reversing such findings (!) (!) .
Overall, an appellate court should ensure that the reasoning for overturning a trial court’s acquittal is explicit, well-founded, and based on a thorough re-assessment of the evidence, rather than on a mere reappraisal or superficial review (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. The two appellants before us were implicated in FIR No. 26 of 2005 registered under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), by Bannerghatta Police Station, Bangalore Rural District. They were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, in Sessions Case No. 232 of 2005, along with three other accused persons, for offences under the aforesaid provisions and also Section 120B IPC. By judgment dated 03.05.2006, the Trial Court acquitted all five of them of all charges. Aggrieved by their acquittal, the State of Karnataka preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2006 before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2011, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed the acquittal judgment passed by the Trial Court and held all five accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B and 302 read with 149 IPC.
2. Aggrieved thereby, all the five accused persons joined together in filing this appeal before this Court. However, as they failed to surrender after their application for exemption from surrendering was rejected, the appeal stood dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to the order dated 01.03.2012. Thereafter, upon the surrender of Ramesh, Kumara and Praveen Alexander, Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the appeal was restored in so far as they were concerned. The appeal was admitted on 28.03.2016 and at that time, this Court dismissed the appeal in so far as Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were concerned, as they had not surrendered. Praveen Alexander, Appellant No. 5, expired thereafter and taking note of the same, vide order dated 01.04.2019, this Court dismissed the appeal in so far as he was concerned on the ground of abatement. In effect, only Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 remain in the picture. They were granted bail by this Court on 29.04.2019.
3. The crucial aspect to be noted first and foremost is that the High Court has reversed a judgment of acquittal. The High Court was also conscious of this, as it was duly noted in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. The parameters for interference with an acquittal judgment being well defined, we would have to see whether the High Court was justified in doing so.
4. The case of the prosecution was that the five accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Babureddy, the deceased, and attacked him with deadly weapons on 07.02.2005 at about 7:30 AM. This attack was stated to have taken place near Hullahalli Gate Bus Stand in Bangalore Rural District. The deceased was doing real estate business in partnership with M. Ramaiah (PW-1). Ramesh, Appellant No. 1 and his brother are stated to have approached the deceased for selling their land admeasuring Acs. 2.06 Guntas. Thereupon, the deceased is said to have mediated the sale of this land to one Narayanareddy (PW-10) and Rs. 2,50,000/- was allegedly given as advance to Appellant No. 1 and his family members by Narayanareddy (PW-10). However, about 15 days prior to the death of the deceased, Appellant No. 1 is said to have approached him along with his mother and asked him to get the sale transaction cancelled by taking back the advance amount received by them. The deceased supposedly told them to approach Narayanareddy (PW-10) directly as he was only a mediator. Appellant No. 1 is stated to have abused the deceased saying that he would teach him a lesson. This was the alleged motive for the criminal conspiracy and the consequential fatal attack upon the deceased.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.02.2005 at about 7:30 AM, the deceased was standing along with M. Ramaiah (PW-1), Munikrishnappa (PW-2) and Venkatesh (PW-3) near Hullahalli Gate Bus Stand and at that time, Ramesh, Appellant No. 1 came there on a scooter while the other accused came in an autorickshaw, armed with deadly weapons like longs (akin to swords), choppers and knives, and assaulted the deceased. The deceased was then shifted in a Maruti V
In an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for High Court to take a contrary view about credibility of witnesses.
Murder – If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, Appellate Court should not disturb findings of acquittal recorded by Trial Court on the ground that another vie....
The judgment reinforces the principle of presumption of innocence and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, emphasizing the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquitta....
The presumption of innocence remains until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal without clear evidence of error or illegality in the trial c....
(1) Appeal against acquittal – If appellate court comes to conclusion that findings recorded by trial court are erroneous and contrary to law, it is always open for appellate court, by recording good....
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimonies, emphasizing the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
