Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the appellate court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. 

"Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the appellate court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol said.

Dealing with an appeal against the Karnataka High Court's order reversing acquittal of the accused, the bench enunciated the parameters to be applied by the appellate court under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code before overturning the trial court's judgment of acquittal in criminal cases.

It said that the appellate court must see whether the view taken by the trial court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 

"If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken," the bench said.

The bench pointed out that in many cases, the trial judge who eventually passed the order of acquittal has an occasion to record the oral testimony of all material witnesses. Thus, in such cases, the trial court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour. 

"While deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses, their demeanour remains in the back of the mind of the trial judge. As observed in the commentary by Sarkar on the Law of Evidence, the demeanour of a witness frequently furnishes a clue to the weight of his testimony. This aspect has to be borne in mind while dealing with an appeal against acquittal," the bench said.

Highlighting the principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the bench pointed out that the acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence.

"The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by one H D Sundara and others and set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment of 2010 holding them guilty of offences punishable under Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, with rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

The High Court had overturned the acquittal of the appellants with regard to the incident of a fight on August 29, 1999 over property between the accused and the family of the complainant. 

After hearing senior advocate S Nagamuthu on behalf of accused-appellants and Additional Advocate General Nishanth Patil, the bench found that there was no discussion about the testimony of eyewitnesses for deciding whether their testimony could be believed. In fact, there are no findings recorded by the High Court after reappreciating the evidence. 

"There is not even a finding to indicate that the High Court considered the question whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view. Without recording any reasons and without recording any finding regarding the role played by the appellants individually and collectively, the High Court has jumped to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been established," the bench noted.

It also said that the High Court's judgment did not throw any light on the question of who were the authors of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured witnesses and there was no finding as to how Section 149 of IPC got attracted.

"Thus the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the High Court, as an appellate court, while hearing the appeal against acquittal, has not done its duty," the bench said.

Therefore, court upheld the trial court's view as a possible conclusion after going through the evidence of material prosecution witnesses.

Case Title: H. D. SUNDARA & ORS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA