Mookkiah & Anr. vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, Criminal
Appeal No. 2085 of 2008, Decided on Jan 4, 2003
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“This Court in a series
of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the
High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also
entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the
entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find
an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and
not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different
view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of
consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in
approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was
against conviction or the other against an acquittal.” [Para 4]
The
Court also noted the following case laws:
State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh and Another, (2011) 4 SCC 786, the Court, while
considering the scope and interference in appeal against acquittal held:
“15. We are fully alive of the fact that we are dealing with
an appeal against acquittal and in the absence of perversity in the said
judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction, is not warranted. It is settled proposition of law that the
appellate court being the final court of fact is fully competent to
reappreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. Law
does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping
in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The
presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by the competent court and there can be no quarrel to the said legal
proposition that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of
acquittal.”
Minal
Das and Others vs. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479, P. Sathasivam, J. held:
“14. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court
to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come
to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion
arrived at by the trial court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing
with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the
appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving
cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of
acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and
substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it
is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial court has ignored the
evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents
like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is
competent to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the materials
placed.”
Rohtash
vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589, the Court held:
“27. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal recorded
by the trial court. The law of interfering with the judgment of acquittal is
well settled. It is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there
are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse,
the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The
appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused
and further that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be
avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.
Murugesan
& Ors. vs. State Through Inspector of Police, 2012 (10) SCC 383,
Ranjan
Gogoi, J. elaborately considered the broad principles of law governing the
power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
while hearing the appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the trial
Judge. After adverting to the principles of law laid down in ‘Sheo Swarup vs.
King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227’ (2) and series of subsequent pronouncements, in
para 21 summarized various principles as found in para 42 of Chandrappa &
Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 as under:
“21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged
after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup is to be found in para
42 of the Report in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka. The same may, therefore,
be usefully noticed below:
“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, reappreciate
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.”
State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC
573
On
the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the Court held that:
The High Court as appellate court, analyzed the evidence as
provided in Section 378 of the Code and rightly reversed the order of acquittal
and found A-1 and A-2 guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC for murdering Ramaiah in pursuance of their common intention and awarded sentence
of life imprisonment. We fully agree with the said conclusion.