LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicting the appellants for offences under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Naresh & Ors. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Judgment Date: 25 April 2018
Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 338
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving an alleged assault. The court considered the evidence and circumstances to modify the sentences of some accused while acquitting one. This judgment highlights the importance of a thorough review of evidence and the specific context of each case in criminal appeals.
Case Background
On 26 May 1998, an incident occurred where four individuals, Naresh (A-1), Suresh (A-2), Ashish (A-3), and Rajendra (A-4), allegedly attacked Tej Singh with an axe. The attack resulted in injuries to Tej Singh, including abrasions, contusions, and a lacerated wound. Following this incident, an FIR (No. 83/1998) was filed on 27 May 1998, by PW-4 Jaswir Singh at PS Haridwar-Laksar against the four accused.
The four accused were subsequently apprehended and faced trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The trial court, on 16 March 2011, acquitted all four accused of the charges under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The State of Uttarakhand and the complainant then filed appeals before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, challenging the acquittal. Naresh Kumar (A-1) also filed a Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2011 before the High Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26 May 1998 | Alleged assault on Tej Singh by Naresh (A-1), Suresh (A-2), Ashish (A-3), and Rajendra (A-4). |
| 27 May 1998 | FIR (No. 83/1998) filed by PW-4 Jaswir Singh at PS Haridwar-Laksar. |
| 16 March 2011 | Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, acquits all four accused. |
| 10 July 2017/17 July 2017 | High Court of Uttarakhand reverses the trial court’s decision and convicts all four accused. |
| 25 April 2018 | Supreme Court modifies the High Court’s judgment, acquitting Suresh (A-2) and reducing the sentences of the remaining accused. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Uttarakhand, through its judgment dated 10 July 2017/17 July 2017, allowed the appeals filed by the State and the complainant. The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, and convicted all four accused for offences under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34, and 504 of the IPC. The High Court sentenced each of the accused to varying terms of imprisonment and fines.
The accused, feeling aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, filed appeals before the Supreme Court of India by way of special leave. The Supreme Court then heard the appeals and delivered the present judgment.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 307: Deals with attempt to murder.
- Section 323: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 324: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 504: Deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
These sections are part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is the primary criminal code of India, defining various offences and their punishments. The sections in question relate to offences against the human body and public tranquility.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the injuries sustained by Tej Singh were not serious in nature. They emphasized that the medical report indicated only abrasions, contusions, and a single lacerated wound.
- They highlighted the long passage of time since the incident (1998), noting that the case had been ongoing for approximately 20 years.
- The appellants pointed out that they were all first-time offenders and had not been involved in any criminal activity in the past 20 years.
- It was also argued that Tej Singh survived the attack and lived for another 20 years, and had no permanent disability.
- The appellants also argued that Suresh (A-2) was suffering from an advanced stage of lung cancer.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in reversing the trial court’s acquittal.
- They contended that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
- They argued that the High Court had rightly convicted the accused based on the evidence presented before it.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submissions |
|
| Respondents’ Submissions |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicting the appellants.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the appellants? |
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was partially justified. The Court upheld the conviction of appellant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 but modified their sentences by reducing the jail time to what they had already served and enhancing the fine amount. However, the Court acquitted appellant No. 2, Suresh, restoring the trial court’s order of acquittal for him. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions in its judgment. The court’s decision was primarily based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the injuries, the passage of time, and the conduct of the accused. The Court considered the findings of both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court before arriving at its decision.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Findings of the Additional Sessions Judge | The Court restored the findings of the Sessions Judge in respect of appellant No. 2-Suresh, leading to his acquittal. |
| Findings of the High Court | The Court upheld the findings of the High Court regarding the conviction of appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that injuries were not serious and that they were first-time offenders. | The Court acknowledged these points and reduced the jail sentence of appellant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 to the period already undergone. |
| Appellants’ submission regarding the long passage of time. | The Court considered this factor in reducing the jail sentence. |
| Appellants’ submission regarding Suresh’s (A-2) health condition. | The Court acquitted Suresh (A-2), restoring the trial court’s acquittal order. |
| Respondents’ submission that the High Court was correct in reversing the trial court’s acquittal. | The Court partially upheld this by maintaining the conviction of appellant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 but reduced their sentences. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The findings of the Additional Sessions Judge were restored in respect of appellant No. 2-Suresh, leading to his acquittal.
- The findings of the High Court were upheld regarding the conviction of appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:
- The incident occurred in 1998, and the case had been pending for approximately 20 years.
- The injuries sustained by Tej Singh were not very serious.
- Tej Singh survived the attack and lived for twenty years.
- The accused had already served a significant portion of their jail sentences.
- The accused were first-time offenders and had not been involved in any criminal activity in the past 20 years.
- Suresh (A-2) was suffering from an advanced stage of lung cancer.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Passage of Time | 25% |
| Nature of Injuries | 20% |
| Victim’s Survival | 15% |
| Jail Time Served | 15% |
| First Time Offenders | 15% |
| Health Condition of Accused (Suresh) | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of injuries, the passage of time, and the conduct of the accused. Legal considerations were also taken into account, but the factual context weighed more heavily in the court’s decision.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, modifying the High Court’s judgment as follows:
- The jail sentences of appellant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 were reduced to the period already undergone. They were, however, required to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000 each to the legal representatives of the victim, Tej Singh, or deposit the same in the Court.
- Failure to deposit the fine amount would result in the revival of the High Court’s judgment, and the defaulting appellants would be taken into custody to serve the remaining jail sentence.
- The conviction of appellant No. 2, Suresh, was set aside, and he was acquitted. His bail bonds were cancelled.
The Court stated, “we are inclined to interfere only in the quantum of jail sentence awarded by the High Court and reduce their jail sentence to the sentence already undergone and at the same time consider it just and proper to enhance the fine amount imposed by the High Court on appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4.”
The Court also noted, “we find that the role and involvement of appellant No.2 – Suresh is not established beyond reasonable doubt while inflicting the injuries to Tej Singh and hence, in our view, appellant No.2-Suresh deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of injuries, the passage of time, and the conduct of the accused.
- The Court reduced the jail sentences of appellant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 to the period they had already served, demonstrating a focus on proportionality and fairness.
- The acquittal of appellant No. 2, Suresh, highlights the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Court enhanced the fine amount for the convicted appellants, reflecting a balance between punishment and compensation.
- The judgment underscores the need to consider the health condition of the accused.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed appellant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 each to the legal representatives of late Tej Singh (victim) or deposit the said sum in the Court for being paid to the legal representatives of late Tej Singh. This amount (total Rs. 2,25,000) was to be deposited within three months from the date of the order.
The Court also directed that failure to deposit the amount by any of the appellants would revive the High Court’s judgment, and the defaulting appellant(s) would be taken into custody to undergo the remaining jail sentence awarded by the High Court.
Specific Amendments Analysis
Not Applicable.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in criminal appeals, the appellate court should consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of injuries, the passage of time, and the conduct of the accused. The court also emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This case also highlights the importance of considering the health condition of the accused.
There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach in criminal appeals, considering both the evidence and the individual circumstances of the accused.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court’s judgment. The Court reduced the jail sentences of appellant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 to the period already undergone, while enhancing the fine amount. Appellant No. 2, Suresh, was acquitted, and the trial court’s acquittal order was restored. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a comprehensive review of the facts, circumstances, and evidence presented in the case, emphasizing the importance of a balanced and fair approach in criminal appeals.