TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the area of police station Hathgaon, district Fatehpur. It was alleged that about 16-17 dacoits successfully decamped with cash, jewellery, ornaments, firearms etc. During the course of commission of dacoity, Hiralal, Mahesh Chandra and Smt. Mahabiria sustained injuries of whom Hiralal died. While dacoity was in operation, the matter was reported orally at police station, Hathgaon by village chowkidar Ram Ratan (P.W. 3) on the same day at 1.30 P.M. wherein none was named. Head Moharrir Fateh Bahadur Singh (P.W. 1) recorded the report in chick register and registered case under Section 395/397 IPC. Station Officer Yadram Verma (P.W. 29) took up investigation and he immediately proceeded to the scene of occurrence. He met injured Hiralal, Mahesh Chandra and Smt. Mahabiria on the way. He got the said injured sent for their medical examination with chithi majroobi . When the injured persons were being taken to hospital, Hiralal succumbed to his injuries. The constable who was escorting the injured then gave information at police station about the death of Hiralal, whereupon case was converted to one under Section 396 IPC. When the investigating officer reached the place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... names appeared in the report given by PW-2. With reference to the evidence of Smt. Sheo Sakhi, the High Court noticed that she did not know Awdesh, yet stated as if she was acquainted with him. Her statement in the cross examination was highlighted by the High Court. Similar was the position regarding Smt. Ram Rati (PW-12). The investigating officer stated that when he was going to the place of occurrence, he had met the deceased and two other persons who received injuries in the occurrence. They were Mahesh Chandra and Smt. Mahabiria. He had a talk with them and he sent them for medical examination. But till that time also the names of Awdhesh, Babu Singh and Jhallar Singh were not disclosed. Primarily, on these premises the High Court directed acquittal. 5. The High Court also referred to the fact that while some of the alleged dacoits covered their faces to conceal the identity; the three named accused persons who were known did not try to cover their faces. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the reasoning indicated by the High Court does not justify the order of acquittal. Most of the reasonings are based on surmises and conjectures. Particular ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (5) No application under Sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal. (6) If, in any case, the application under Sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2). 9. Whereas Sections 379-380 cover special cases of appeals, other sections lay down procedure to be followed by appellate courts. 10. It may be stated that more or less similar provisions were found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the old Code ) which came up for consideration before various High Courts, Judicial Committee of the Priv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... competence on his part. The High Court, however, declined to accept the said view. It held that no condition was imposed on the High Court in such appeal. It accordingly reviewed all the evidence in the case and having formed an opinion of its weight and reliability different from that of the trial Judge, recorded an order of conviction. A petition was presented to His Majesty in Council for leave to appeal on the ground that conflicting views had been expressed by the High Courts in different parts of India upon the question whether in an appeal from an order of acquittal, an appellate court had the power to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Judge. Their Lordships thought it fit to clarify the legal position and accordingly upon the humble advice of their Lordships , leave was granted by His Majesty. The case was, thereafter, argued. The Committee considered the scheme and interpreting Section 417 of the Code (old Code) observed that there was no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction on the High Court in exercise of powers as an Appellate Tribunal. The Code also made no distinction as regards powers of the High Court in dealing with an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against acquittal, the High Court has full powers to review and to reverse acquittal. 19. So far as this Court is concerned, probably the first decision on the point was Prandas v. State AIR1954SC36 (though the case was decided on 14-3-1950, it was reported only in 1954). In that case, the accused was acquitted by the trial court. The Provincial Government preferred an appeal which was allowed and the accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The High Court, for convicting the accused, placed reliance on certain eyewitnesses. 20. Upholding the decision of the High Court and following the proposition of law in Sheo Swarup (supra), a six-Judge Bench held as follows: 6. It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. (emphasis supplied) 21. In Surajpal Singh v. State 1952CriLJ331 a two-Judge Bench observed that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal. If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated. 25. In Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra 1956CriLJ426 the accused was prosecuted under Sections 302 and 447 IPC. He was acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court. Dealing with the power of the High Court against an order of acquittal, Bose, J. speaking for the majority (2:1) stated: (AIR p. 220, para 1) It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court, however, in emphasising the importance of adopting a cautious approach in dealing with appeals against acquittals, it was observed that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the order of acquittal and so, `the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons': vide Surajpal Singh v. State 1952CriLJ331 . Similarly in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab 1953CriLJ521 it was observed that the interference of the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal would be justified only if there are `very substantial and compelling reasons to do so'. In some other decisions, it has been stated that an order of acquittal can be reversed only for `good and sufficiently cogent reasons' or for `strong reasons'. In appreciating the effect of these observations, it must be remembered that these observations were not intended to lay down a rigid or inflexible rule which should govern the decision of the High Court in appeals against acquittals. They were not intended, and should not be read to have intended to introduce an additional condition i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s thro' the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then breakdown and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly, as a learned author (Glanville Williams in Proof of Guilt) has saliently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted `persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that `a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the trial court'. This, of course, is not a new principle. It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. (emphasis supplied) 31. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996CriLJ2867 this Court said: While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Such is not a jurisdiction limitation on the appellate court but judge-made guidelines for circumspection. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken a view ignoring the admissible evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether all or any of the accused has committed any offence or not. 34. In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 2002CriLJ3751 this Court said: 12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of acquittal or conviction as a court of first appeal has full power to review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court. (emphasis supplied) 37. From the above decisions, in Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2007CriLJ2136 the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal were culled out: (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 conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... piece of evidence may confirm the other. 39. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. 40. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
