Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which had set aside the acquittal of eleven appellants and convicted them under sections 302, 325 and 323 read with section 149 and under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants had been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and shorter terms for other offences. The prosecution case was that on September 17, 1966, a Kajri Tij day, the deceased Hausla Prasad and Rampher had gone to a temple about 8 miles from their village Jhampur. They left the temple late in the afternoon along with Dwarika and Lakhu whom they met there. Soon after crossing a river near village Singha Chanda, they were attacked by the appellants. Dwarika brought a bullock cart from village Gauhani and the injured persons proceeded to Tarabganj police station. On the way, Rampher dictated the First Information Report to a boy called Gorakhnath, and the report was lodged at about 12:30 at night. Hausla Prasad succumbed to his injuries just before reaching the police station. The prosecution examined Rampher, Dwarika, Lakhu, Ram Shanker and Ram Kripal as eyewitnesses. The trial court disbelieved these witnesses and acquitted the appellants. The High Court did not accept the evidence of Ram Shanker and Ram Kripal but accepted the evidence of Rampher, Dwarika and Lakhu to convict the appellants. The core legal issue was whether the Supreme Court could reappreciate evidence in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution when the High Court had reversed an order of acquittal. The Court observed that in such appeals, it would examine the evidence only if the High Court had failed to apply correctly the principles governing appeals against acquittals. Citing Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, Surajpal Singh v. State and Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure makes no distinction between the powers of the appellate court in appeals against acquittal and conviction. However, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The appellate court must give due regard to the views of the trial court on credibility of witnesses and should be slow in disturbing findings of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. If two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed. The High Court is the final court of facts and the reserve jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is exercised only in exceptional cases where the High Court has disregarded these guidelines or caused grave injustice. The Supreme Court found that the High Court was aware of these principles but failed to apply them. The High Court characterised the trial court's findings as perverse, which was not correct. The trial court had found undue delay in lodging the FIR and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The defence version that the occurrence took place under cover of darkness was well founded. The principal witness had created a false eyewitness, and another witness had made conflicting statements on oath before two courts. The motive of illicit intimacy between the deceased and daughter of one of the assailants was contradicted by evidence that the assailants were dacoits who searched pockets, and the FIR did not mention the motive. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the trial court's reasonable view on these aspects. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction by the High Court, and restored the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Principles Governing Appellate Interference - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 325, 323, 149, 147; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - The Supreme Court reiterated that an appellate court has full and wide powers in appeals against acquittal but must give due regard to the trial court's views on credibility and only disturb acquittal if two views not reasonably possible - Held that if two views of evidence are reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed (Paras 10-15). B) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Supreme Court's Jurisdiction in Appeals Against Acquittal - Constitution of India, Article 136 - The Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence in special leave appeals unless the High Court failed to apply correct principles, disregarded legal process, or caused grave injustice - Held that High Court is final court of facts and Supreme Court's reserve jurisdiction is exercised only in exceptional cases (Paras 10-15). C) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Delay in Lodging FIR and Time of Occurrence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - High Court erred in rejecting trial court's view that delay in FIR and occurrence after dark cast suspicion on prosecution case - Held that trial court's view was reasonable and High Court should not have discarded it (Paras 10-15). D) Evidence - Credibility of Witnesses - False Introduction of Eyewitness and Conflicting Statements - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Principal witness's creation of a false eyewitness and another witness's conflicting statements required caution, and High Court erred in ignoring these flaws - Held that evidence of these witnesses could not be safely relied upon to reverse acquittal (Paras 10-15). E) Evidence - Motive - Illicit Intimacy and Dacoity - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Prosecution case of motive based on illicit intimacy was contradicted by witness's statement that assailants were dacoits and searched pockets, and FIR did not mention motive - Held that trial court correctly attached importance to this inconsistency and High Court erred in treating it as minor (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court can reappreciate evidence in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution when the High Court has reversed an order of acquittal, and whether the High Court correctly applied the principles governing appeals against acquittals in the present case.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Law Points
- The Supreme Court under Article 136 will not reappraise evidence unless High Court failed to apply correct principles governing appeals against acquittal
- presumption of innocence and benefit of doubt favor accused
- appellate court must give due regard to trial court's view on credibility
- if two views possible
- acquittal not to be disturbed
