Supreme Court allows State’s appeal against acquittal in assault case: State of Maharashtra vs. Shankar Ganapati Rahatol (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 67

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a High Court reject an appeal against acquittal by simply stating that the trial court’s judgment was not “perverse”? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court correctly refused to grant leave to appeal against a trial court’s acquittal in an assault case. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the State’s appeal, emphasizing the need for a more thorough review of evidence when considering appeals against acquittals. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On August 29, 1998, Shivram (P.W.12) was working at the Hanuman Water Supply Society when a loudspeaker was switched off. Upon investigating, he was allegedly attacked by Ananda Ganpati Rhatol, Shankar Ganpati Rhatol, and others. Shivram sustained injuries and was hospitalized. He lodged a complaint on September 1, 1998, leading to the registration of FIR No. 1165/1998. The respondents were charged under Sections 143, 147, 323 read with 149, 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The trial court acquitted all the accused on September 6, 2005.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was tried by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, who acquitted all the accused on September 6, 2005. The State of Maharashtra then filed an application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. This application was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on June 13, 2008. The High Court stated that the medical evidence did not support the complainant’s claims of injury on his back or thigh and that the trial court’s judgment could not be considered “perverse.” The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This section allows the State to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a trial court. However, the State must first obtain leave to appeal from the High Court. The Supreme Court has previously clarified the scope of Section 378(3) of CrPC in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475. According to the judgment, the High Court should consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or if there are arguable points, rather than focusing solely on whether the acquittal order is “perverse.”

Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) states:

“If such an order of 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, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.”

Arguments

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court erred in rejecting the application for leave to appeal.
• The State contended that the High Court failed to properly consider the evidence on record, particularly the medical evidence.
• The State relied on the judgment in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475, to argue that the High Court should have considered whether a prima facie case was made out, rather than focusing solely on whether the trial court’s judgment was “perverse.”
• The State pointed out that the medical evidence, specifically the testimony of Dr. Yashwant (P.W. 5), indicated that the complainant had sustained a fracture of the left tibia and had lacerated wounds, which contradicted the High Court’s findings.

Accused’s Arguments:

• The accused argued that the High Court was correct in rejecting the application for leave to appeal.
• The accused contended that the trial court’s judgment was based on a proper assessment of the evidence.
• The accused maintained that the High Court’s finding that the medical evidence did not indicate injuries on the back or thigh of the complainant was correct.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the State’s application for leave to appeal against the acquittal order, particularly given the medical evidence on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475, Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon by the State to argue that the High Court should have considered whether a prima facie case was made out, rather than focusing solely on whether the trial court’s judgment was “perverse.” The Supreme Court reiterated the principle established in this case, emphasizing that the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether arguable points have been raised.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This provision allows the State to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a trial court, provided that the High Court grants leave to appeal. The Supreme Court considered this provision to determine whether the High Court correctly applied it when rejecting the State’s application for leave to appeal.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475* and stated that the High Court should have considered whether a prima facie case was made out, rather than focusing solely on whether the trial court’s judgment was “perverse.”
• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)* to determine the scope of the High Court’s power to grant leave to appeal. The court held that the High Court should have considered whether a prima facie case was made out.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Medical Evidence: The Court noted that the High Court’s finding that the medical evidence did not support the complainant’s claims was incorrect. The medical evidence clearly indicated a fracture of the left tibia and lacerated wounds, which the High Court had overlooked.
• Prima Facie Case: The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered whether a prima facie case was made out for appeal, as per the ruling in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475. The High Court’s focus on whether the trial court’s judgment was “perverse” was deemed insufficient.
• Cross Complaints: The fact that there were cross complaints between the two groups in the village, with one case resulting in a conviction that was pending appeal, also influenced the Court’s decision to grant leave to appeal in the present case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s order, the medical evidence, and the legal principles laid down in previous judgments. The Court found that the High Court had not properly considered the medical evidence and had focused on the wrong legal standard. The Supreme Court then set aside the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court also took into account the existence of cross-complaints and related appeals.

The Supreme Court stated:

“In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would be set aside.”

The Court also noted:

“Further, we have noticed from the impugned order that while rejecting the application, the High Court has stated that medical evidence did not indicate any injury on the back or on the thigh of the complainant. However, from the material placed on record, it appears that the said, finding in the order run contrary to the medical evidence on record.”

The Court concluded:

“In any event, having perused the material on record, we are of the view that, prima facie , a case is made out by the State for grant of leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.05.2005, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2000.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court must thoroughly review the evidence and consider whether a prima facie case is made out when deciding whether to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal order.
• The High Court cannot reject an application for leave to appeal simply by stating that the trial court’s judgment was not “perverse.”
• Medical evidence plays a crucial role in such cases and must be properly considered by the appellate court.
• The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that appellate courts must conduct a more thorough review of the evidence when considering appeals against acquittals.
• The existence of cross-complaints and related appeals can be a factor in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to:

• Take the criminal appeal preferred by the State challenging the acquittal in Sessions Case No. 140 of 2000 on file.
• Take up the appeal in terms of this order, as well as Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 2005 simultaneously and decide the same expeditiously.
• Consider the criminal revision application No. 119 of 2006 filed by the complainant on its own merit.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised when deciding whether to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal order under Section 378(3) of the CrPC. The High Court cannot reject such an application simply because the trial court’s judgment is not “perverse.” This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475 and clarifies the scope of the High Court’s powers in dealing with appeals against acquittals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order that had rejected the State’s application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused in an assault case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must conduct a more thorough review of the evidence and consider whether a prima facie case is made out, rather than focusing solely on whether the trial court’s judgment was “perverse.” This judgment reinforces the importance of a comprehensive review of evidence in appellate proceedings and ensures that genuine cases of injustice are not overlooked.