If appeal is rightly entertained, HC is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently

Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court was entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This rule 17 will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the peculiar circumstances of the case. (Para 10 of Umedbhai Jadavbhai)

GURU DUTT PATHAK V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2015

May 06, 2021

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice M. R. Shah decided the present appeal. In this case, the deceased was the Pradhan of the village for more than two decades. The accused were having grudge against him. The deceased was murdered by four accused were armed with weapons. The deceased son lodged an FIR against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The statement of witness was recorded. The accused were arrested. The case was in trial by the court. The accused denied all the charges been imposed. The prosecution examined nearly eight witnesses. The trial court acquitted the accused stating that there were no independent witnesses, the place of occurrence is not proved by the prosecution, there was no occasion for the deceased to reach the spot, absence of fire injuries at the person of the deceased and prosecution has not explained the injuries on the accused. The State raised the appeal before the High Court. The High Court has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and consequently has convicted the accused for the offences under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The accused being aggrieved by the order of high court have raised the present appeal.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in reversing the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and consequently convicting the accused. The trial Court has committed no error in acquitting the accused; the motive has not been established and proved. The prosecution witnesses are all related and interested witnesses, there is no independent witness has been examined and the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the exact place of the occurrence of the incident. The counsel has further submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is based on appreciation of evidence on record, the High Court shall not interfere with such an order of acquittal. It is submitted that in the present case the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal in an appeal under Section 378 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and has exercised the powers/jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 378 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The counsel prayed to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and restore the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the High Court has not committed any error in reversing the judgment; order of acquittal and consequently convicting the accused. The High Court is justified in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and coming to its conclusion. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat. The prosecution has established and proved the actual place of incident/occurrence and has explained the injuries on one of the accused. The accused has stated the enmity towards the deceased in the 313 statement. The witnesses who are examined are found to be reliable and trustworthy; mere non - examination of the independent witnesses shall not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka the court reiterated the legal position as under “An appellate court has full power to review, re - appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 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. 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. 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. 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.” (Para 42 of Chandrappa V. State of Karnataka)

In the case of Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka the Court has also consider the scope of Section 378 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The court observed the following “An identical question came to be considered before this Court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai, the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. However, the High Court, while reversing the acquittal, did not consider the reasons given by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused.”

Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court was entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This rule will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the peculiar circumstances of the case. (Para 10 of Umedbhai Jadavbhai)

In the case of Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, it is observed and held by this Court that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated. It is observed that when there is direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses are trustworthy and reliable, absence of motive is insignificant. In the present case, in the 313 statement itself, the accused has also stated that there was an enmity. Therefore, it proves the motive of the accused. The prosecution has also proved the place of incident as stated in the FIR. On the witness statement it is clear that the deceased has not sustained any firearm injury, although it was fired at him. The High Court on re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, more particularly the medical evidence and even the deposition of the doctors examined by the prosecution as well as by the defence. the High Court has come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused were perverse and even contrary to the evidence on record and/or misreading of the evidence, the High Court has rightly interfered with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and has rightly convicted the accused. No error has been committed by the High Court in interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.

The appeal is said to be dismissed.

View/Download Judgment - GURU DUTT PATHAK V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Shantha Gopika R