Supreme Court overturns acquittal in murder case: Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 278

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, examining the scope of appellate review in criminal cases. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad correctly overturned the acquittal of an accused, Guru Dutt Pathak, in a murder case. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves the murder of Ram Aasare Pathak, the village Pradhan, who was allegedly killed on October 6, 1981, around 7:00 a.m. The prosecution’s case was that the accused, including Guru Dutt Pathak, harbored a grudge against the deceased. On the day of the incident, the deceased was going to attend the call of nature near the Yamuna river when he was attacked by the accused. The accused were allegedly armed with lathis, a spear, and a pistol. The deceased was attacked with these weapons, and his head was crushed. A gunshot was also fired as the assailants fled. The deceased died on the spot. Satrughan Pathak, the son of the deceased, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted all the accused, citing reasons such as the witnesses being related and interested, the absence of independent witnesses, doubts about the place of occurrence, and the lack of firearm injuries on the deceased. The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, accused nos. 1 to 3 died. The High Court, upon re-evaluating the evidence, overturned the trial court’s decision and convicted Guru Dutt Pathak under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment. This conviction was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the trial court’s acquittal.
• The trial court did not err in acquitting the accused.
• Motive was not established.
• All prosecution witnesses were related and interested.
• No independent witness was examined.
• The eyewitnesses were chance witnesses.
• Medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case regarding firearm injury.
• The prosecution failed to explain injuries on the accused Murlidhar Pathak.
• The FIR was antedated.
• The prosecution failed to prove the exact place of the incident.
• The High Court’s decision was against the principles of appeal against acquittal.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal after re-appreciating the evidence.
• The trial court’s grounds for acquittal were not tenable and were contrary to the evidence.
• The prosecution established the place of the incident and explained the injuries on Murlidhar Pathak.
• The appellant himself stated there was enmity in his 313 statement.
• Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal when other witnesses are reliable.
• The alleged firearm shot was in the air and did not cause any injury.
• Eyewitnesses fully supported the prosecution’s case.

Table of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189* to reiterate the principles for interfering with a trial court’s acquittal.
• The principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227* regarding the weight to be given to the trial court’s views were considered.
• The Court followed the principle from Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR 1954 SC 1* that appellate courts should consider the trial court’s advantage of seeing witnesses.
• The powers of an appellate court to review evidence in acquittal appeals, as stated in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415*, were reaffirmed.
• The Court noted from Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450* that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence.
• The principle that an acquittal should not be lightly interfered with, as stated in State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368*, was acknowledged.
• The circumstances where a High Court can interfere with an acquittal, as provided in State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271*, were considered.
• The principles for interfering with an acquittal, as reiterated in Dhanapal v. State (2009) 10 SCC 401*, were followed.
• The Court considered Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10* to determine if a decision was based on no evidence.
• The scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C. and the High Court’s interference, as discussed in Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka (2019) 5 SCC 436*, were examined.
• The Court relied on Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC 228* to emphasize the High Court’s right to re-appreciate evidence.
• The principle from Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412* that the High Court can reverse an acquittal if the trial court’s approach was illegal was considered.
• The Court noted from K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309* that the High Court can reappreciate evidence if the trial court discarded relevant evidence.
• The principle from Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807* that the High Court can review the entire evidence in an appeal against acquittal was followed.
• The Court relied on K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355* to state that the High Court should interfere if the trial court had fanciful doubts.
• The Court relied on Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2019) 8 SCC 529* to state that reliable evidence of injured eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely for reason that no independent witness was examined.
• The Court relied on Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563* to state that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated.
• The Court relied on Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 627* to state that the examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement.
• The Court referred to Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 408* and Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC 145* to discuss the importance of explaining injuries on the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the perversity of the trial court’s findings, and the High Court’s correct application of appellate review principles. The Court emphasized that when eyewitnesses are found to be trustworthy, the absence of independent witnesses or motive becomes less significant. The Court also noted that the trial court had misread the evidence and had come to a conclusion that was not supported by the facts on record. The High Court, on the other hand, had correctly re-appreciated the evidence and rightly overturned the acquittal.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual aspects, such as the reliability of eyewitnesses and the perversity of the trial court’s findings, weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision. The legal considerations, such as the principles of appellate review and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, also played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the trial court’s acquittal, the High Court’s reversal, and then examined the High Court’s decision. The Court found that the trial court’s findings were perverse, and the High Court had rightly re-appreciated the evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction.

The Court considered the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, ultimately concluding that the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court’s acquittal. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable eyewitness testimony and the need for appellate courts to correct perverse findings by lower courts.

The Court rejected the argument that the prosecution failed to prove the place of the incident, noting that the recovery of the dead body and blood-stained items from the road near the Primary Pathshala supported the prosecution’s version. The Court also dismissed the argument that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the accused Murlidhar Pathak, stating that the investigating officer had explained that these injuries were sustained during the arrest.

The Court also addressed the argument that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, clarifying that the prosecution never claimed that the deceased had sustained a firearm injury. The eyewitnesses had stated that the firearm was discharged in the air and did not hit the deceased.

The Court also noted that even if the testimony of one of the eyewitnesses (PW2) was excluded, the testimony of the other eyewitness (PW4) was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court found PW4 to be a reliable and trustworthy witness whose testimony was consistent with the FIR.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had correctly applied the principles of appellate review and had rightly interfered with the trial court’s acquittal. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.

“…the High Court has rightly observed that when there is a direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses and the eyewitnesses are trustworthy and reliable, absence of motive is insignificant.”

“…where there are clinching evidence of eyewitnesses, mere non-examination of some of the witnesses/independent witnesses and/or in absence of examination of any independent witnesses would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.”

“…the incident is not disputed by the accused. The place of occurrence of the incident has been established and proved by the prosecution as per the case of the prosecution.”

Key Takeaways

• Appellate Review: High Courts have the power to re-appreciate evidence and reverse acquittals if the trial court’s findings are perverse or not supported by evidence.
• Eyewitness Testimony: Reliable eyewitness testimony can be sufficient for conviction, even if there are no independent witnesses.
• Motive: When there is direct evidence, the absence of motive is not a significant factor.
• Explanation of Injuries: The prosecution must explain injuries on the accused, but this is not a rigid rule and depends on the facts of each case.
• Place of Incident: The prosecution must prove the place of the incident, but circumstantial evidence and witness testimony can be used to establish this.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the powers of appellate courts to correct errors made by trial courts. It also highlights the importance of reliable eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. This case will serve as a precedent for future cases involving appeals against acquittals.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that since the appellant, Guru Dutt Pathak, was granted interim bail up to April 30, 2021, and the same was not extended, he was required to surrender forthwith to serve out his sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court is justified in reversing a trial court’s acquittal when the trial court’s findings are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, or based on a misreading of the evidence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that appellate courts have the power to re-appreciate evidence and correct errors made by lower courts. This judgment did not introduce a change in the previous position of law but reinforced the existing principles of appellate review in criminal cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Guru Dutt Pathak and upheld the High Court’s decision to overturn the trial court’s acquittal. The Court found that the High Court had correctly re-appreciated the evidence and rightly convicted the accused. The judgment reinforces the principles of appellate review and the importance of reliable eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.