Shivasharanappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1366 of 2007 & Jagadevappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2007, Decided on
May 7, 2013
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“It is clear as day that while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, the High Court has a duty to scrutinize the evidence and sometimes
it is an obligation on the part of the High Court to do so. The power is not
curtailed by any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is
also worthy to note that while re-appreciating and reconsidering the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is based, certain other principles pertaining
to other facets are to be borne in mind. The said aspects have been encapsuled
in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)
4 SCC 415 as under: -
“(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.”
Quite apart from the above, the High Court is required to see
that unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of
acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal.”
The
court noted following case laws on this respect:
Shivaji
Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 2622, wherein a
three-Judge Bench has opined thus: -
“.....there are no fetters on the plenary power of the
Appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which the order of acquittal is
founded and, indeed, it has a duty to scrutinize the probative material de
novo, informed, however, by the weighty thought that the rebuttable innocence
attributed to the accused having been converted into an acquittal the homage of
our jurisprudence owes to individual liberty constrains the higher court not to
upset the finding without very convincing reasons and comprehensive
consideration.”
Girija
Prasad (dead) by LRs. v. State of M. P. (2007) 7 SCC 625
State
of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran ( 2007) 3 SCC
755
To see entire text of judgment follow the link: