SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand and N.P. Singh, JJ.
State of Karnataka - Appellant
versus
Bheemappa & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Appeal Nos. 834-835 of 1985
Decided on 13.5.1993

IMPORTANT POINT
While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, after granting leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the court can with a view to do justice, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, make an independent appraisal of the evidence on the record so as to determining the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

Headnote:Constitution of India 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against acquittal, after granting leave under - Jurisdiction and powers of Supreme Court. Court can with a view to do justice, make an independent appraisal of the evidence on the record, so as to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused - Procedural safeguards.

       Held: This court while dealing with an appeal, after granting leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, does not, generally speaking, reappraise the evidence which has been considered and analysed by two courts below but this is a self imposed restriction by this court and not a statutory limitation. The jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 136 is not to be confused with an, ordinary statutory appellate jurisdiction. It is discretionary and much wider in scope and reach but wider the discretionary power, -greater is the need to exercise it with great care and caution and sparingly. The power of this court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, after granting leave under Article 136, is in no way different than its power in hearing an appeal against conviction and sentence and the court can-with a view to do justice, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, make an independent appraisal of the evidence on the record, so as to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused. It can go into all questions of fact and law and reach its own conclusion based on the evidence record. Of course, this court gives due weight and consideration to the reasoning of the courts below while dealing with an appeal brought before it on leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is in the light of the above settled procedural safe guards, which are in-built in Article 136, that we shall deal with the two appeals filed by the State on leave being granted under Article 136. (Para 7)

       (ii) Constitution of India 1950 - Article 136 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302/149,324/149 - Appeal against acquittal for the offences under - Established enmity and inter-se relationship between the parties - Eyewitnesses closely related to each other besides being chemical to the accused - Partisan nature of their evidence - Appreciation of their evidence - These witnesses saw the incident of assault on deceased from a close distance Consistent version - Their evidence as regards the participation of A1, A3, A4, A6, A5, A9 and All, sufficiently clear, reliable and cogent. These seven accused came variously armed and being members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons - Attacked deceased persons simultaneously - Accused shared the common object of committing the murders and of causing injuries - Murders pre-planned, cold blooded and calculated - Conviction for offences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge sustainable.

       Held: The High Court adopted a rather shortcut and instead of sifting the evidence on record, completely threw out the prosecution evidence and acquitted them. The High Court acquitted these accused persons, even though their involvement in the crime had been established, probably influenced by the false involvement of A1 to A13 in the crime by P.Ws. 3,6,9,10 and 11. Instead of appraising the evidence of these witnesses in the light of other evidence and the record the High Court appears to have believed that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" was a sound principle to follow. That was a mistake on the part of the High Court.' It did not dispel the reasoning of the trial court while acquitting these accused persons. As already noticed, we are in agreement with the findings of the trial court for the reasons recorded by it as regards the implication of those seven accused persons in the crime. (para 14)

       Consequently, we find A1, A3, A4, A6, A8, A9 and A 11 are all guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC and sentence each of them to suffer two years RI on each court. They are also convicted and sentenced to two years RI for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC for the injuries caused to Basangouda. We also find them guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC for the murder of deceased Gowdappagouda and again for an offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC for committing the murder of Shankargouda and sentence each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life on each of the two courts. The sentences of imprisonment shall, however, run concurrently. (Para 15)

       Result: State Appeals dismissed. Orders accordingly.