2010 (I) OLR (SC) — 193
DALVEER BHANDARI AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.
State of U.P.... Appellant
Versus
Ram Sajivan & Others... Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2002
Decided on 4th December, 2009.
2. ACQUITTAL - Steps to be taken by High Court and other appellate Courts to overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal order, indicated.
1.The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court's decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when:
(i)The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;
(ii)The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
(iii)The trial court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice”;
(iv)The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
(v)The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(vi)The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
(vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2.The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3.If two reasonable views can be reached—one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction—the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.”
3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Secs. 386, 378 - Acquittal - Appeal - The powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction - Apex Court would be justified in interfering with the judgment of acquittal of the High Court only when there are very substantial and compelling reasons to discard the High Court's decision - Principles stated.
1.The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2.The accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court.
The High court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3.There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for reversing an order of acquittal.
JUDGMENT
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. — Unfortunately, the centuries old Indian Caste System still takes its toll from time to time. This case unfolds the worst kind of atrocities committed by the so called upper- caste (Kshatriya or Thakur) against the so called lower-caste -Harijan caste in a civilized country. It is absolutely imperative to abolish the caste system as expeditiously as possible for the smooth functioning of Rule of Law and Democracy in our country.
2. In the instant case, the accused persons belonging to Thakur caste literally butchered seven totally innocent persons belonging to the Harijan caste and to wipe out the entire evidence of their atrocities, after shooting they were thrown in the river Ganges where currents were very strong. Out of seven, even the bodies of five persons could not be recovered.
3. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 10.01.2001 delivered by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1715 of 1982. By this impugned judgment, all the 18 accused who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court have been subsequently acquitted by the High Court.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in an elaborate, exhaustive and well considered judgment, sentenced the 18 accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for committing the murder of Jasodiya, Ganga, Tulsi, Deo Nath alias Madan, Din Dayal, Sukhlal and Shripal. Accused persons were further sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment on each counts for committing the dacoities. The accused persons were also sentenced to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 IPC for abduction of Kallu, Jasodiya, Ganga, Tulsi, Deo Nath, Din Dayal, Sukhpal and Shripal. All the accused persons were also sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC for elimination of evidence of murder by throwing the dead bodies of the seven persons in the river Ganga. All the sentences awarded to the accused persons on all counts were directed to run concurrently.
5. In appeal, the High Court acquitted all the eighteen accused. The appellant, State of U.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court acquitting all the accused persons.
6. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:-
On the intervening night of 9/10.9.1979 in the village Lohari, Police station Hussainganj, U.P. 20-22 accused persons committed dacoities in the Harijan locality by breaking open the doors of the main gate of the house of Jasodiya and Kallu P.W.14. They looted the house.
Thereafter, Kallu, Jasodiya, Din Dayal, Sukhlal, Shripal, Tulsi, Ganga Ram, Deo Nath alias Madan were tied with rope and were taken to the bank of the river Ganges, pushed in the boats and brutally murdered and thereafter all of them were thrown in the river Ganges, at a point where there were strong currents. Out of seven, five dead bodies could not be retrieved. Kallu P.W.14 jumped into the stream of the river Ganges and saved his life. Jasodiya, wife of Kallu was recovered from the river Ganges in an injured and unconscious state and after she regained consciousness, she got a written report Ex. KA.1 scribed by the witness Shyam Lal P.W.4 and the report was lodged at the police station Hathgaon of the District, U.P.. The statement of Jasodiya recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer, the extract of which is Ex. KA.25. The dying declaration Ex. KA.6 of Jasodiya was recorded by Dr. C. M. Mittal, Medical Officer at midnight on 10.9.1979. She narrated that on the previous night i.e. 09.09.1979 at about 11 p.m. about 20-22 persons came to her house. They forced their entry inside the house by cutting open the door shutters of the house and looted the property. The accused persons caught hold of her and her husband Kallu, Tulsi, Madan, Ganga Ram, Din Dayal, Sukhlal and Shripal sons of Din D
3.(1974) 3 SCC 288 : Bishan v. The State of Punjab...39
1.AIR 1954 SC 1 : Tulsiram v. The State...37
2.(1973) 2 SCC 424 : Lekha v. State of Bihar...38
4.(1978) 1 SCC 228 : Umedbhai v. The State of Gujarat...40
6.(1987) 2 SCC 529 : Tota v. State of Punjab...42
8.(2007) 4 SCC 415 : Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka...44
11.(1996) 9 SCC 225 : Ramesh v. State of Gujarat...46
13.(2009) 4 SCC 271 : State of U.P. v. Banne...48
5.(1979) 1 SCC 361 : B.N.Mutto v. Dr. T.K. Nandi...41
7.(2002) 6 SCC 470 : Harijana v. Public...43
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.