Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case based on circumstantial evidence: Ravi Sharma vs. State (2022) INSC 594

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 594

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, especially when the trial court’s view is plausible? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the importance of the presumption of innocence and the scrutiny required when overturning an acquittal. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.M. Sundresh authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On May 30, 2011, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed after a body was discovered. The deceased was identified by his brother, PW2. Initially, neither PW1 (father of the deceased) nor PW2 named any suspects. The Investigating Officer (IO) conducted an inquest and prepared a site map. The next day, PW1 and PW2 raised suspicion against the accused, a friend of the deceased, leading to his apprehension and the subsequent recovery of a firearm.

The trial court disbelieved the evidence presented by PW1 and PW2 regarding the motive and raised doubts about the recovery of the firearm under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial court noted that while a wooden piece of a gun butt and cartridges were found at the scene, four cartridges were found in the deceased’s pocket. Finding the motive unproven and the recovery doubtful, the trial court acquitted the accused.

However, the High Court of Delhi overturned the trial court’s decision. While agreeing with the trial court on the “last seen theory,” the High Court accepted PW2’s evidence regarding motive and the recovery of the firearm. The High Court also relied on the Ballistic Expert’s opinion, which the trial court had deemed inconclusive. The High Court concluded that the circumstances formed a sufficient chain to establish the accused’s guilt and convicted him.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, District and Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, initially acquitted the appellant (accused) in S.C. No.6/12. The High Court of Delhi reversed this acquittal based on the existence of motive and the recovery of the firearm under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The matter then reached the Supreme Court through a criminal appeal.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. deals with appeals in cases of acquittal. The Supreme Court referenced its earlier judgment in Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 495), which states that an appellate court should be slow to reverse a trial court’s acquittal, as it strengthens the presumption of innocence. The court emphasized that the appellate court must consider whether the trial court’s view is a possible one, particularly when the evidence has been analyzed.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act pertains to the discovery of facts based on information received from an accused. The trial court had raised doubts about the recovery of the firearm under this section, noting the lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the evidence.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The trial court’s acquittal was well-reasoned and should not have been overturned by the High Court.
• The High Court substituted its own views for that of the trial court, despite the trial court’s view being plausible.
• There was no clear link in the circumstantial chain of evidence presented by the prosecution.
• The motive was not established according to the law.
• The Ballistic Expert’s opinion was inconclusive and rightly used in favor of the appellant by the trial court.
• The manner of recoveries was doubtful, as the trial court had pointed out.
• The suspicion raised by the trial court was not dispelled by the High Court.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The High Court has wide powers to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal.
• The High Court’s reasons for conviction were cogent and not perverse.
• PW2’s testimony established the motive due to enmity between the deceased and the appellant.
• The recoveries made, along with the motive, were sufficient grounds to convict the appellant.

Sub-Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s acquittal, considering the principles governing appeals against acquittals under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., particularly when the trial court’s view was a possible one.

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 several precedents to determine the scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal. These authorities were used to define the legal parameters within which the High Court should have operated.

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court used the cited authorities to emphasize that an appellate court should be slow to reverse an order of acquittal. The authorities were used to highlight the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need for a thorough scrutiny of evidence before overturning an acquittal. The court emphasized that the view taken by the trial court was plausible and the High Court should not have interfered with it. The court also reiterated that a conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion.

• Jafarudheen and Others v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC Online SC 495)*: The court relied on this case to emphasize that an appellate court should be slow in reversing the order of a trial court rendering acquittal.
• Mohan alias Srinivas alias Seena alias Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233]*: The court reiterated the principle of double presumption of innocence.
• Anwar Ali v. State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166*: This was used to define when a finding of fact can be considered perverse.
• Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, [(2019) 5 SCC 436]*: The court used it to consider the scope of Section 378 CrPC and the interference by the High Court.
• Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, [(1978) 1 SCC 228]*: The court used this to state that the High Court was entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently.
• Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, [(1998) 5 SCC 412]*: The court used this to state that the High Court should first record its conclusion on whether the trial court’s approach was patently illegal or the conclusions were wholly untenable.
• K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala, [(1999) 3 SCC 309]*: The court used this to state that if the trial judge discarded relevant evidence, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence.
• Atley v. State of U.P., [AIR 1955 SC 807]*: The court used this to state that the High Court can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion, keeping in view the presumption of innocence.
• K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., [(1979) 1 SCC 355]*: The court used this to state that the High Court should interfere if the trial court rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons.
• N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., [(2021) 3 SCC 687]*: The court used this to reiterate the principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [(2007) 4 SCC 415]*: The court used this to lay down the general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
• Murugesan v. State, [(2012) 10 SCC 383]*: The court used this to state that the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of conviction only when the conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view.
• Hakeem Khan v. State of M.P., [(2017) 5 SCC 719]*: The court used this to state that if the possible view of the trial court is not agreeable for the High Court, even then such possible view recorded by the trial court cannot be interdicted.
• Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1994) Supp 3 SCC 367*: The court used this to state that in cases of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater importance.
• Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706*: The court used this to outline the tests for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction.
• Chandrakant Ganpat Sovitkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 3 SCC 16*: The court used this to state that no one can be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion, however strong it may be.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have been slower to reverse the acquittal by the trial court, especially since the trial court’s view was a plausible one. The Supreme Court was also influenced by the fact that the evidence was circumstantial and did not form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The lack of independent witnesses for the recovery of evidence and the inconclusive nature of the ballistic report also weighed in the mind of the Court.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the following points:

• The trial court’s view was plausible and based on a scrutiny of evidence.
• The High Court overturned the acquittal by substituting its own views.
• The circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain.
• The motive was not sufficiently proven.
• The recoveries were doubtful due to lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies.
• The ballistic report was inconclusive.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court did not act within the legal parameters of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. in reversing the acquittal. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal, and the High Court should have been slower to reverse the order of the trial court.

The Supreme Court stated, “On the aforesaid analysis, the order of conviction rendered by the High Court of Delhi stands set aside, by restoring the acquittal by the trial Court.” The Court also reiterated, “a mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot be a substitute for acceptable evidence.” Additionally, the Court noted, “We do believe that the High Court could have been slower in reversing the order of acquittal rendered by the Court of First Instance.”

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court should be slow to reverse an order of acquittal by a trial court, especially when the trial court’s view is plausible.
• The presumption of innocence is strengthened by an order of acquittal.
• In cases of circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes greater importance.
• A conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion, however strong it may be.
• Recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must be supported by credible evidence, including independent witnesses.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of conviction by the High Court and restored the acquittal by the trial court. The appeals were allowed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should be slow to reverse an order of acquittal by a trial court, especially when the trial court’s view is plausible. This judgment reinforces the principle of the presumption of innocence and highlights the importance of adhering to the legal parameters while deciding an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the principle that a conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion and that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi Sharma vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reaffirms the importance of the presumption of innocence and the high standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal. The Court emphasized that an appellate court should be cautious in reversing a trial court’s decision, especially when the trial court’s view is a possible one. This judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent legal parameters that must be followed while dealing with appeals against acquittals, particularly in cases involving circumstantial evidence.