Date of the Judgment: 28 August 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 742
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturn an acquittal by a lower court when material evidence was overlooked? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving a violent clash between political factions. This judgment clarifies the extent of the High Court’s power to review acquittals, particularly when there are claims of significant oversights by the trial court. The bench, comprising Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, delivered the judgment, with Justice Shantanagoudar authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case stems from a violent incident following Panchayat elections in Karanda village on May 30, 1993. The next day, on May 31, 1993, members of the losing IPF party sought shelter in the house of their leader, Badal Malik (PW2), after being chased by CPI(M) workers. Subsequently, a large group of CPI(M) workers, armed with weapons, allegedly attacked the IPF members, setting fire to houses, assaulting individuals, and causing multiple fatalities and injuries.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 30, 1993 | Panchayat elections held in Karanda village; CPI(M) wins, IPF loses. |
| May 31, 1993 (8:30 a.m.) | IPF members take shelter in Badal Malik’s (PW2) house after being chased by CPI(M) workers. |
| May 31, 1993 (1:30 p.m.) | CPI(M) workers mobilize, allegedly attack IPF members, set fire to houses, and cause fatalities and injuries. |
| May 31, 1993 | First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Menoka Malik (PW1) at Memari Police Station, registered as Case No. 82/1993. |
| December 15, 2001 | Sessions Judge at Burdwan acquits all accused in Sessions Case No. 91/1998. |
| June 30, 2004 | High Court of Judicature at Calcutta confirms the acquittal in C.R.R. No. 765 of 2002. |
| August 28, 2018 | Supreme Court of India remands the case back to the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court acquitted all 82 accused, noting inconsistencies in witness testimonies, discrepancies between the FIR and witness statements, and a conflict between medical evidence and witness accounts regarding the nature of injuries. The State did not appeal, but the first informant and three others filed a revision petition before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no perversity or procedural defect in the trial court’s decision. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case, stating that a reappraisal of evidence would create an unconscious bias in the mind of the trial judge.
Legal Framework
The case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 325, 326, 436, 379, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections pertain to offences including rioting, unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, house trespass, causing hurt, arson, theft, attempt to murder, and murder. The Supreme Court also considered the scope of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the High Court’s revisional powers.
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the High Court’s powers of revision. Specifically, sub-section (3) states:
“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.”
Arguments
The appellants (original complainants) argued that the High Court failed to properly exercise its revisional jurisdiction by not considering the material evidence overlooked by the trial court. They contended that the trial court improperly discarded witness testimonies based on minor inconsistencies and failed to consider the evidence related to charges other than murder, such as arson and unlawful assembly.
The respondents (accused) argued that the High Court correctly upheld the acquittal, as the trial court’s decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence. They emphasized the discrepancies in witness statements and the conflict between ocular and medical evidence.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Improper exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court |
|
|
The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lay in highlighting the High Court’s failure to address the trial court’s overlooking of crucial evidence, thereby challenging the conventional approach to revisional jurisdiction.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the primary issue as:
✓ Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, properly considered the trial court’s judgment, particularly with respect to the alleged overlooking of material evidence and whether the High Court’s view was reasonable.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction? | Remanded to the High Court for Rehearing | The High Court failed to consider material evidence overlooked by the trial court, including evidence related to charges other than murder and the trial court’s improper discarding of witness testimony. The High Court did not apply its judicial mind to determine if the trial court’s judgment was perverse. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dharma vs. Nirmal Singh, (1996) 7 SCC 471 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The bar under Section 401(3) of the CrPC does not restrict the Supreme Court’s power under Article 136 of the Constitution. |
| State of Rajasthan vs. Islam, (2011) 6 SCC 343 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | If the Supreme Court finds an acquittal not based on a reasonable view, it can review the entire material. |
| Masalti vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | In cases involving a large number of offenders and victims, consistent accounts from a few witnesses can sustain a conviction. |
| Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) is not strictly applicable in India. |
| Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not strictly applicable in India. |
| Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not strictly applicable in India. |
| Narain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 455 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not strictly applicable in India. |
| Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2018) 6 SCC 433 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not strictly applicable in India. |
| Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | The doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is a rule of caution, not a mandatory rule of evidence. |
| Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 16 SCC 752 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Courts should undertake a forensic exercise to discover the truth, even when exaggerations and embellishments are present. |
| State of Punjab v. Hari Singh (1974) 4 SCC 552 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Courts must separate the “chaff from the grain” to extract the hard core of truth from the evidence. |
| State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Ocular testimony prevails over medical evidence when the former is found to be trustworthy and credible. |
| Sheetala Prasad vs. Shree Kant (2010) 2 SCC 190 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where material evidence has been overlooked or irrelevant evidence has been considered. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that the High Court failed to consider material evidence. | Accepted. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly assess the trial court’s overlooking of evidence related to murder, attempt to murder, grievous hurt, house burning, and unlawful assembly. |
| Respondents’ submission that the High Court correctly upheld the acquittal. | Rejected. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not adequately address the trial court’s errors and did not exercise its revisional jurisdiction properly. |
Authorities Viewed by the Court:
✓ The Supreme Court relied on Dharma vs. Nirmal Singh [(1996) 7 SCC 471]* and State of Rajasthan vs. Islam [(2011) 6 SCC 343]* to assert its power under Article 136 of the Constitution to review the entire material and come to a just conclusion, irrespective of the limitations on the High Court’s revisional powers under Section 401(3) of the CrPC.
✓ The Court cited Masalti vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1965 SC 202]* to emphasize that consistent accounts from a few witnesses are sufficient for conviction in cases involving numerous offenders and victims.
✓ The Court referred to Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 366]*, Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277]*, Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab [(2003) 7 SCC 643]*, Narain v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2004) 2 SCC 455]*, and Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar [(2018) 6 SCC 433]* to reiterate that the doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not applicable in India.
✓ The Court cited Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar [(2002) 6 SCC 81]* to highlight that the doctrine of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is merely a rule of caution.
✓ The Court relied on Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 16 SCC 752]* to emphasize the court’s duty to discover the truth even when there are exaggerations in testimonies.
✓ The Court cited State of Punjab v. Hari Singh [(1974) 4 SCC 552]* to state that courts must separate the “chaff from the grain” to extract the truth.
✓ The Court cited State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal [(1988) 4 SCC 302]* to state that ocular testimony prevails over medical evidence if the former is trustworthy.
✓ The Court relied on Sheetala Prasad vs. Shree Kant [(2010) 2 SCC 190]* to clarify the principles on which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised, including cases where material evidence is overlooked.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, must ensure that the trial court’s findings are not based on a misappreciation of evidence or a failure to consider material facts. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not lead to the rejection of the entire evidence if the core of the testimony is consistent and credible.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Failure of the High Court to consider material evidence overlooked by the Trial Court | 40% |
| Improper discarding of witness testimonies due to minor inconsistencies | 30% |
| Non-consideration of charges other than murder (arson, unlawful assembly) | 20% |
| Need to separate “chaff from the grain” in witness testimonies | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Trial Court acquits the accused
Trial Court’s order is challenged in revision
High Court upholds the acquittal
High Court’s order is challenged before the Supreme Court
Supreme Court finds that the High Court did not properly exercise its revisional jurisdiction
Matter is remitted to the High Court
High Court to re-evaluate the case on merits
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The High Court failed to consider whether the trial court had overlooked material evidence related to murder, attempt to murder, and grievous hurt.
- The High Court overlooked evidence related to other charges, such as house burning and unlawful assembly.
- The High Court did not properly evaluate the consistency of witness testimonies, focusing too much on minor inconsistencies and improvements.
- The High Court did not consider that the medical evidence cannot override the ocular testimony of the witnesses if the latter is found to be trustworthy.
- The High Court did not provide adequate reasons for upholding the trial court’s decision.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“…the High Court has not applied its judicial mind in determining whether the judgment of the trial court was perverse inasmuch as the entire body of evidence was discarded, simply on the basis that some of the witnesses had deposed for the first time before the Court.”
“…the High Court has failed to consider whether the trial Court brushed aside material evidence related to the issue of murder, attempt to murder and grievous hurt, and entirely overlooked material evidence on vital issues such as house burning, grievous hurt and unlawful assembly.”
“…the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court has not been properly exercised by the High Court. The High Court should not have proceeded casually while affirming the judgment of the trial Court.”
There were no dissenting opinions. The judgment was authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court’s revisional powers under Section 401 of the CrPC are subject to the Court’s broader power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not lead to the rejection of the entire evidence if the core of the testimony is consistent and credible.
- Courts must consider all material evidence, including that related to charges other than murder, such as arson and unlawful assembly.
- The medical evidence cannot override the ocular testimony of the witnesses if the latter is found to be trustworthy.
- High Courts must exercise their revisional jurisdiction with due diligence, ensuring that trial court judgments are not based on a misappreciation of evidence or a failure to consider material facts.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide the revision petition on merits, in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court also directed that any observations made in this order will not influence the High Court in deciding the revision petition on merits.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, must ensure that the trial court has not overlooked material evidence or made findings based on a misappreciation of evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies should not automatically invalidate the entire testimony, and that courts must consider all material evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Menoka Malik vs. State of West Bengal clarifies the scope of revisional powers of the High Court in criminal cases. The court emphasized that High Courts must thoroughly examine trial court judgments to ensure that no material evidence is overlooked and that minor inconsistencies do not lead to the dismissal of credible testimonies. This judgment underscores the importance of a comprehensive and fair appraisal of evidence in the pursuit of justice.