Supreme Court Dismisses State's Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case — Third Judge's Authority Affirmed. The third Judge's decision to acquit was upheld as he found the evidence insufficient to support a conviction under section 302 IPC.

In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a criminal case where the State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against the acquittal of two respondents convicted for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge had sentenced the respondents to life imprisonment, but upon appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court found that while the accused caused injuries, they differed on the nature of the offence. The case was referred to a third Judge under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, who concluded that there was no sufficient motive for the accused to commit the offence and found the evidence of the key witness to be unreliable, leading to their acquittal. The State contended that the third Judge lacked the authority to overturn the concurrent finding of guilt by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the third Judge acted within his jurisdiction and that his conclusions regarding the evidence were not unreasonable. The court emphasized that section 429 allows the third Judge to address the entire case and not just the points of difference between the other two Judges, thus validating the acquittal (Paras 1-6).

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of Third Judge - Authority to Acquit - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 429 - The third Judge, upon referral, is empowered to resolve differences between Judges and can acquit if he finds the evidence insufficient. The court held that the third Judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in acquitting the accused based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the third Judge had the authority to acquit the accused despite the concurrent finding of guilt by two Judges of the Division Bench.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh, affirming the acquittal of the respondents by the third Judge under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Law Points

  • Jurisdiction of third Judge
  • Section 429 Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1898
  • Acquittal standards
  • Evidence evaluation
  • Judicial discretion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1980 LawText (SC) (08) 23

Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1975

1980-08-28

A.C. Gupta, Ranjit Singh Sarkaria

1981 AIR 365, 1981 SCR (1) 580, 1980 SCC (4) 316

P. Rama Reddy, G. S. Rao, G. N. Rao, A. N. Mulla, G. Narisimhalu

State of Andhra Pradesh

P. T. Appaiah and Another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal of murder charges

Remedy Sought

State of Andhra Pradesh sought to overturn the acquittal of the respondents

Filing Reason

Disagreement on the nature of the offence committed by the accused

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Judge convicted the respondents, but the High Court's Division Bench had differing opinions on the nature of the offence.

Issues

Authority of the third Judge under section 429 Validity of acquittal despite differing opinions of the Division Bench

Submissions/Arguments

The third Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by acquitting the accused. The third Judge's findings on evidence were reasonable and within his authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The third Judge, upon referral under section 429, has the authority to resolve the entire case and can acquit if he finds the evidence insufficient, as established in prior case law.

Judgment Excerpts

The third Judge to whom the case was referred under section 429 did not over-step the limits of his jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the view taken by him was unreasonable or perverse.

Procedural History

The case was initially tried by the Sessions Judge, convicted, and sentenced. Upon appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court differed on the nature of the offence, leading to a referral to a third Judge under section 429.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: 429
  • Indian Penal Code: 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Injunction Against YouTuber for Disparaging Marico's Products in Video Review. Court holds that false and malicious statements in product reviews can constitute disparagement, and interim injunction can be granted even if def...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remands Victim's Appeal in SC/ST Atrocity Case Due to Cursory High Court Order. High Court Failed to Re-appreciate Evidence in Appeal Against Acquittal Under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC.