An appellate court can review evidence in acquittal cases but must uphold the presumption of innocence unless compelling evidence warrants a different conclusion.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The victim of homicide was found with injuries on his face and head, to which he had succumbed, before he was brought to the hospital. The accused, two in number, were arrested as the perpetrators of the crime. The motive alleged was that the accused, engaged to cut with trees in the ancestral property of the deceased, failed to do it in accordance with the instructions of the carpenter. The deceased questioned the accused and blamed them for causing pecuniary loss. An altercation ensued, in which the accused together beat the victim, causing fatal injuries to his head and face. The main link in the chain of circumstances was the last seen together theory. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, against which acquittal, the grieving wife of the victim is before us in appeal.

2. We remind ourselves the principles to be kept in mind when considering an appeal against an order of acquittal. In Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has restated the principles regarding the scope of the power of appellate Court to re-appreciate, review or reconsider evidence and interfere with an acquittal. The general principles were encapsulated in the following manner:

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-

appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court”.

3. The prosecution, in the trial, examined twenty witnesses as PWs.1 to 20 and marked twenty seven documents as Exts.P1 to P24 as also eleven Material Objects as MO1 to MO11. The defence marked two contradictions, Exts.D1 and D2, from the evidence of PW3.

4. We heard learned Counsel R.Sreehari, who appeared for the appellant and took us through the entire evidence. The learned Counsel would assert that the motive was established and so was the last seen together theory. The learned Trial Judge committed an error in acquitting the accused despite proof of guilt, as discernible from an unbroken chain of circumstance. The learned Counsel for 1st respondent (A1) Sri.Sathyanatha Menon and learned Counsel Sri.John S.Ralph for 2nd respondent (A2) argued in support of the judgment.

5. PW1 gave the FIS, Ext.P1(a), at 8.30 a.m. on

16.4.2007. Ext.P1 FIR registered indicates PW1 having seen the deceased with injuries on the face at about 7.30 in the morning. He deposed that victim