Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Acquittal under – As per prosecution eight accused persons armed with axes, knives and clubs attacked ‘M’ and assualted him – PW-4 tried to run away, however, was assaulted with an axe on his head, back and on scrotum – PW-4 sustained injuries, became unconcious and fell on the ground – PW-3 hid himself inside the jali-trees – After assailants left, PW-3 went to M and found that he was dead and PW-4 was unconcious with blood flowing out of his injuries – PW-3 fearing for his life kept on hiding then left during night – On the next day he informed PW-2 (father of deceased) about the incident – Eight accused persons were tried and acquitted by the trial Court – The High Court acquitted all the accused persons except the three appellants – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the case of prosecution substantially rests on the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 read with various documents, especially the reports of medical examination and post mortem – The conduct of PW-3 renders his very presence at the place of incident as doubtful – Despite a heavy assault by multiple accused persons, he did not suffer any injury at all – That too when he was indeed chased by A-3 while attacking PW-4 – It is extremely doubtful that the assailants simply chose to give up on PW-3 and did not pursue him behind the bushes, despite knowing that PW-3 could turn out to be an eye witness of the incident – The story that follows the story of hiding behind the bushes is equally doubtful and leaves one speculating – The timelines, the route taken by PW-3, complete disregard for severely injured PW-4, failure to inform the police post despite access to it etc. are some of the factors that raise a reasonable doubt on the entire story – The chain of circumstances created by the testimony of PW-3 is not consistent with the outcome of guilt – The version of PW-4 is that he was attacked from the back by A3 and thereafter, he fell unconscious – As per his testimony and the testimony of PW-3, PW-4 was attacked by an axe on his head, back and scrotum – The first point of corroboration is to be seen from the circumstances following the assault – The assault on PW-4 took place at around 4 P.M. and he was admittedly unconscious thereafter – He remained as such until he was “selfadmitted” in the hospital at around 12:30 P.M. the following day – The second point for corroboration of this version could be taken from the wound certificate issued by PW-8 during the treatment of PW-4 at Government Hospital – The Trial Court relied upon the wound certificate and noted a contradiction between the condition of PW-4 at the time of admission – In the certificate, PW-4 is stated to be “self-admitted” but at the same time, he is stated to be unconscious – The injuries found on PW-4, as per the wound certificate, were simple in nature – PW-8 gave some treatment to PW-4, however the nature of treatment is not indicated – In the ordinary course of natural events, an injury inflicted by an axe, that too in a manner that the injured immediately fell unconscious and remained unconscious for almost 20 days, could not have been a simple injury – The High Court omitted to take note of two material aspects-the fact that the statement of PW-4 was recorded after a period of one month from the date of incident and the factum of family relationship between the deceased and PW-4 – The former aspect raises a grave suspicion of credibility, whereas the latter raises the suspicion of being an interested witness – The High Court went on to reverse the decision by taking its own view on a fresh appreciation of evidence without recording any illegality, error of law or of fact in the decision of the Trial Court – Thus, the High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal, without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or error in the reasoning of the Trial Court. [Paras 29, 30, 33, 34, 39]
Criminal Jurisprudence – Criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty – All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice – The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:
Held: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. [Para 36]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appellate Power – Qualified Power of the High Court:
Held: In the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record – However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal – The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence – The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact – If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view – A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion – What is required is an illegality or perversity. [Para 25] Criminal Jurisprudence – Two-views theory – Reiterated.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.