Chinnam Kameswara Rao & Ors vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Home Secretary, Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2011, Decided on 10th
January, 2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“The powers of Appellate Court are stipulated
in Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A bare reading of the
said provision leaves no manner of doubt that in an appeal against an order of
acquittal the Appellate Court may reverse such order and direct that further
inquiry be made or that the accused be re-tried, as the case may be or impose a
sentence upon him according to law. Similarly in the case of appeal from a
conviction the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the findings recorded
by the trial Court and discharge the accused or pass an order for his re-trial
etc.” [Para 10]
“The plenitude of the power available to the
Appellate Court notwithstanding recent pronouncements of this Court has evolved
a rule of prudence according to which the Appellate Court must bear in mind
that in the case of acquittal the innocence of the accused is doubly assured by
his acquittal. Consequently, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record the Appellate Court should not disturb the
findings of the acquittal recorded in favour of the accused. A long line of
decisions rendered by this Court have recognised that while deciding acquittal
appeal the power of the Appellate Court is in no way circumscribed by any
limitation and that power is exercisable by the Appellate Court to
comprehensively review the entire evidence.” [Para 11]
The Court noted following
decisions:
Chandrappa
& Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007)
4 SCC 415, in which the Court held:
“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, re-appreciate 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.”
The Court also noted following
case laws:
Dhanna etc. v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (1996) 10 SCC 79
Kallu @ Masih
& Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2006) 10 SCC 313
Murugesan
& Ors. v. State 2012 (10) SCALE 378
To see full
text follow the link: