TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to as the `deceased') who was given in marriage to the accused No. 1 about 1 1/2 years prior to her death and during their marriage, the accused No. 1 was given 11 tolas of gold and a cash of ₹ 10,000/- alongwith other utensils. In spite of all this, the accused were ill-treating and harassing the deceased Ratnavva coercing her to bring more dowry and accordingly a cheque of ₹ 10,000/- was given to the accused No. 1 by the mother of the deceased. But in spite of that the accused did not stop the ill-treatment, and harassment to the deceased Ratnavva. On account of constant harassment and ill treatment to the deceased, they made the life of the deceased a miserable one which abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The accused No. 1 is the husband of the deceased, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents in law, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters in law and the accused N0.6 is the brother in law of the deceased. On the basis of information lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof chargesheet was filed. As accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in extenso: 378. Appeal in case of acquittal.--(1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court, or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision. (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), to the High Court from the order of acquittal. (3) No appeal under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. 12. Though the above principles are well established, a different note was struck in several decisions by various High Courts and even by this Court. It is, therefore, appropriate if we consider some of the leading decisions on the point. 13. The first important decision was rendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor (1934) 61 IA 398. In Sheo Swarup the accused were acquitted by the trial court and the local Government directed the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the old Code (similar to Section 378 of the present Code). At the time of hearing of appeal before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused that in an appeal from an order of acquittal, it was not open to the appellate court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Judge unless such findings could not have been reached by him had there not been some perversity or incompetence on his part. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. 16. The Committee, however, cautioned appellate courts and stated: (IA p.404) But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice. (emphasis supplied) 17. In Nur Mohd. v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151, the Committee reiterated the above view in Sheo Swarup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an accused person it is his duty to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and he cannot take shelter behind the presumption of innocence and cannot state that the law entitles him to keep his lips sealed . 22. Upholding the contention, this Court said: We think this criticism is well founded. After an order of acquittal has been made the presumption of innocence is further reinforced by that order, and that being so, the trial court's decision can be reversed not on the ground that the accused had failed to explain the circumstances appearing against him but only for very substantial and compelling reasons. (emphasis supplied) 23. In Atley v. State of U.P. 1955CriLJ1653 this Court said: In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the appellate court in an appeal under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code came to the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that order. It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wrong. The Court concluded as follows: 9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup case afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) `substantial and compelling reasons', (ii) `good and sufficiently cogent reasons', and (iii) `strong reasons' are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. 26. Again, in M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [1963]2SCR405 , the point was raised befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that in India, there is no jurisdictional limitation on the powers of appellate court. In law 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 scrutinise 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 our jurisprudence owes to individual liberty constrains the higher court not to upset the holding without very convincing reasons and comprehensive consideration. 28. Putting emphasis on balance between importance of individual liberty and evil of acquitting guilty persons, this Court observed as follows: 6. Even at this stage we may remind ourselves of a necessary social perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the contempo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly cogent reasons' and `strong reasons' and the search for them were abandoned as a result of the pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1961CriLJ766 . In Sanwat Singh case this Court harked back to the principles enunciated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor and reaffirmed those principles. After Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan this Court has consistently recognised the right of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion bearing in mind the considerations mentioned by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup case. Occasionally phrases like `manifestly illegal', `grossly unjust', have been used to describe the orders of acquittal which warrant interference. But, such expressions have been used more as flourishes of language, to emphasise the reluctance of the appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal than to curtail the power of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion. In some cases (Ramaphupala Reddy v. State of A.P. 1971CriLJ422 Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra 1974CriLJ337 ), it has been said that to the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the trial court which may not be disturbed in the appeal is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted by the trial court, cannot be made a basis to urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a finding. 32. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. 2002CriLJ2024 , the trial court acquitted the accused but the High Court convicted them. Negativing the contention of the appellants that the High Court could not have disturbed the findings of fact of the trial court even if that view was not correct, this Court observed: 7. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court could not disturb the finding of facts of the trial court even if it found that the view taken by the trial court was not proper. On the basis of the pronouncements of this Court, the settled position of law regarding the powers of the High Court in an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases 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. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. 35. Again in Kallu v. State of M.P. 2006CriLJ799 , this Court stated: 8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt. (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. 37. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to proof is an exercise particular to each case. Referring to the interdependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another, a learned author says [see The Mathematics of Proof II : Glanville Williams, Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p.340 (342)]: The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mother of the deceased is of great significance. She stated that accused persons were abusing, beating her daughter and pulling her hairs and they were not giving proper food to her. She advised her daughter to adjust as this witness has got five more daughters. She further stated that they had given ₹ 10,000/- in cash out of the income of rent received by her and she gave it to accused No. l through cheque and still accused persons did not stop ill-treatment and again demanded money. They demanded ₹ 15,000/- and this witness was unable to pay the same. So far the cheque is concerned, the cheque is marked at Ex. P-4, which is a Xerox copy and the Manager of the Bank is examined in support of the case as PW-12. The witness PW-12 deposed that the cheque has been encashed on 24.4.1989 at Syndicate Bank, Mundgor. The accused persons also admitted of having taken the cheque for ₹ 10,000/- but their defence is that accused No. 1 was plying a truck and the truck met with accident which required heavy repairs and so PW-2 has given a cheque for repairs of said truck and not as dowry. To show that A-1 was owning a truck for which he has produced the Xerox of R.C. Book wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
