2008 (9) TMI 953 - SC - Indian Laws

Attempt to Commit Murder - Order of acquittal passed u/s 307 IPC - High Court rejected the application observing that the judgment of the trial Court could not be said to be perverse and no interference was called for - Powers of revisional Court - whether High Court has committed an error of law in not granting leave to the State to file an appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court? HELD THAT - So far as the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the accused is concerned we find no substance therein. The case in hand was instituted on the basis of FIR. It was thus a Police case. De facto complainant therefore has no right to file an appeal. He therefore preferred a revision. Now it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. A revisional Court cannot convert itself into a regular Court of Appeal. Powers of revisional Court are thus limited. Rejection of a revision application therefore cannot affect the power of the State in invoking statutory remedy available u/s 378 of the Code. The preliminary objection has therefore no force and is hereby rejected. So far as an application for leave to appeal by the State is concerned the High Court rejected it without considering the evidence of the prosecution. In the impugned order the High Court noted that it had heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. It went on to state that none of the injuries sustained by the victim was fatal . According to the High Court the cause behind the assault was that the complainant-advocate was teasing the wife of the accused who was also working in the Court. In Sita Ram Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 (1) TMI 236 - SUPREME COURT this Court held that a single right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the concept that men are fallible judges are men and making assurance doubly sure before irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass a full-scale re- examination of the facts and the law is made an integral part of fundamental fairness or procedure. We have gone through the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It records that 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including injured victim PW1-Rajan and PW2-Charushila real sister of the victim. The trial Court observed that the testimony of PW1-Rajan revealed that the incident occurred on June 7 2003 at about 6.15 p.m. The injuries sustained by PW1 Rajan were proved from the evidence of Dr. D Souza PW12. The Court also noted that the circumstantial evidence supported the contention of the complainant that he sustained bleeding injuries. Bloodstains were found on the shirt and pant of accused which was of Group A i.e. blood group of the complainant. The accused in his statement u/s 313 of the Code admitted that he was present at Vangoan Railway Station on June 07 2003; that he complained to PW9 Naresh Kumar that one person was flirting with his wife; that he was arrested by PW 13 Dattatraya and was sent for medical examination that PW11 Dr. Padmaja examined him and issued Medical Certificate (Ex. 32). He stated that his wife and passengers at the Railway Station had severely beaten the complainant. It has also come on record that complaints were made to the Dahanu Bar Association. Certain documents were also produced relating to objectionable behaviour by the complainant lodging of complaints by the accused and resolution passed by the Dahanu Bar Association. The trial Court came to the conclusion that from the testimony of PW10- Dr. Padmaja who examined the accused on June 8 2003 found three injuries on the person of the accused as mentioned in Ext.32. They were on the left shoulder and the right upper limp of the accused. According to the Court injuries on the person of the accused supported his defence that he was beaten by the complainant and prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. In view of the all these facts circumstances and findings in our opinion the High Court should not have rejected the application for grant of leave by passing a brief order. Moreover the High Court observed in the impugned order that the judgment of the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse . The High Court in our judgment was not right in rejecting the application for leave on the ground that the judgment of the trial Court could not be termed as perverse . They do not curtail the authority of the appellate Court in interfering with an order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The order of the High Court therefore cannot stand and must be set aside. Therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly by remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal.
2. Whether the High Court properly considered the evidence presented by the prosecution.
3. The scope of the appellate court's powers in an appeal against acquittal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal:

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court rejected the State's application for leave to appeal without adequately considering the evidence presented by the prosecution. The High Court's brief order stated that the trial court's judgment could not be said to be "perverse" and dismissed the application. The Supreme Court emphasized that while deciding whether to grant leave, the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case or arguable points have been raised. The Court stated that it is not necessary to enter into minute details of the prosecution evidence at this stage but to ensure that arguable points are considered.

2. Whether the High Court properly considered the evidence presented by the prosecution:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately address the evidence presented by the prosecution. The trial court had recorded detailed findings, including the testimony of 15 witnesses, such as the injured victim PW1-Rajan and his sister PW2-Charushila, as well as medical evidence from Dr. D'Souza (PW12) confirming the injuries sustained by the victim. The High Court failed to discuss this evidence and instead made a sweeping statement that the trial court had appreciated the evidence properly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have recorded reasons for refusing leave and considered the relevant material and sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

3. The scope of the appellate court's powers in an appeal against acquittal:

The Supreme Court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has full power to re-appreciate, review, and reweigh the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. The Court emphasized that there is no restriction on the appellate court's power to determine both questions of fact and law. The Court also highlighted that while there is a double presumption in favor of the accused (presumption of innocence and the reinforcement of this presumption by the trial court's acquittal), this does not mean that the appellate court cannot interfere if the order of acquittal is found to be illegal, unwarranted, or contrary to law. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for rejecting the application for leave based on the notion that the trial court's judgment was not "perverse," stating that such expressions are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" than actual limitations on the appellate court's powers.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the High Court should decide the matter independently, without being influenced by the observations made in the Supreme Court's judgment.