Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench consisting of Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta again took note of the principles related to reversal of an acquittal.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka.

What was the Background of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The complainant, Chanagouda (PW-1), owned agricultural lands and a house in Babanagar village, Bijapur, Karnataka.
• On 19^th September 2001, Chanagouda's son Malagounda went to their field along with laborers Revappa (PW-2), Siddappa (PW-3), Hiragappa (PW-4), and Suresh (PW-5) to build a bund.
• Around 4 pm, the accused persons A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 confronted Malagounda and the others, accusing them of murdering someone named Sangound and threatened revenge.
• A-1 was carrying a jambai (curved sword), A-2 an axe, A-3 a sickle, and A-4 an axe.
  • They attacked and killed Malagounda. Chanagouda fled and hid in bushes.
• Chanagouda filed a complaint at Tikota Police Station on 20^th September 2001, at 4 am, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused.
• After investigation, the accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, and A-6 were charged with offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The trial court acquitted all the accused.
• The High Court of Karnataka partially allowed the state's appeal, convicting and sentencing A-1, A-2, and A-3 to life imprisonment while upholding the acquittal of A-5 and A-6. The appeal against A-4 abated due to his death.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the High Court convicting the accused (A-1, A-2 and A-3). The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favor of the accused.
• The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the High Court causing interference with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court is contrary to the established legal principles governing appeals against acquittal.
• The court held that the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is a plausible and justifiable view based on the evidence on record. The trial court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity.
  • The High Court was not justified in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused.
• The court acquitted the accused.

What were the Landmark Cases Cited in this Case?

• Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another (2022):
  • The Supreme Court pulled out general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal from this case.
  • The court held that,
    • An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
    • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) 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.
    • 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 emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power to review the evidence.
    • An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favor of the accused - the presumption of innocence under criminal jurisprudence, and the presumption reinforced by the trial court's acquittal.
    • If two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal finding recorded by the trial court.
• H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023):
  • This case summarized the following principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC
    • The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
    • The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
    • The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
    • If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and
    • 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.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960):
  • In this case the court laid down that in a statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) the confessional part is inadmissible and only the part distinctly leading to discovery of fact is admissible.
• Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983):
  • This case ruled that when proving a disclosure statement under Section 27 of IEA the investigating officer must state the exact words used by the accused leading to the discovery.
• Subramanya v. State of Karnataka (2022):
  • This case explained the procedure to be followed by the investigating officer in drawing up a proper discovery panchnama under Section 27 of IEA.
• Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022):
  • This case held that mere exhibiting of a memorandum cannot prove its contents, and the investigating officer must narrate the sequence of events leading to the disclosure statement.