Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to lack of evidence and procedural lapse: Fedrick Cutinha vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Case Background

On September 11, 1999, during Lok Sabha and Assembly Elections, an incident occurred near a polling station in Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. Honnappa Gowda, the informant, along with his brother Jagdish, father Poovani Gowda, and neighbors Umanath Naika, Lingappa Naika, and Balachandra, were on their way to cast their votes. After Honnappa Gowda, his father, and brother had voted, they stopped at Abdul Khadar’s shop.

While Umanath Naika was returning from the polling booth, an autorickshaw arrived carrying Krishnappa Naika, Fedrick Cutinha, and several others. Laxman Naika and Fedrick Cutinha threw chili powder on Umanath Naika. Krishnappa Naika then stabbed Umanath Naika and Lingappa Naika with a knife. Laxman Naika also stabbed Poovani Gowda. Fedrick Cutinha assaulted Balachandra with an iron rod and kicked Jagdish. The attackers fled in the autorickshaw after the assault. Lingappa Naika succumbed to his injuries, while others were hospitalized.

The root cause of the incident was a property dispute between Umanath Naika and his brother Krishnappa Naika. This dispute led to the attack, resulting in the death of Lingappa Naika.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted all eleven accused persons in Sessions Cases No.18/2000 and 130/2000, citing a lack of conclusive evidence and the fact that key witnesses, including the independent witness Abdul Khadar (PW-19), had turned hostile. The High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, upheld the acquittal of nine accused but convicted Krishnappa Naika (A1) and Fedrick Cutinha (A3) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder and Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC for causing grievous injuries. This conviction was based primarily on the testimony of PW-5, K. Dheeraj Gowda. The High Court did not provide specific reasons for deviating from the trial court’s findings nor did it state that the trial court’s findings were perverse.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 143, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses the offense of rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Concerns rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relates to the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to the attempt to commit murder.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Additionally, Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is relevant, which mandates that the court must hear the accused on the question of sentence after a conviction.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (A1 and A3):

• The High Court should not have overturned the trial court’s acquittal unless there was a clear perversity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence.
• The High Court should have provided an opportunity for A1 and A3 to be heard on the quantum of punishment before sentencing them to life imprisonment and five years imprisonment, respectively.
• Specifically for A3, it was argued that his role was limited to assaulting and kicking some individuals and throwing chili powder on Umanath Naika, not the actual killing of the deceased.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• The State argued that the High Court was correct in convicting A1 and A3 based on the evidence presented by PW-5, Mr. K. Dheeraj Gowda, which convincingly proved their participation in the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s acquittal of A1 and A3, especially when the trial court’s findings were not deemed perverse.
2. Whether the High Court was obligated to provide A1 and A3 an opportunity to be heard on the quantum of sentence before sentencing them.
3. Whether the conviction of A3 for murder was justified given his limited role in the incident.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court followed Rohtash vs. State of Haryana, (2012) Vol.6 SCC 589, emphasizing that an appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal in exceptional cases where the judgment is perverse.
• The Court also followed Darshan Singh & others vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 290, ruling that accused persons should be convicted based on their individual acts, and that inflicting simple injuries does not warrant a murder conviction.
• The Court applied Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), holding that the High Court was obligated to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence before passing a sentence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Presumption of Innocence: The Court emphasized the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, which is strengthened by an acquittal from the trial court.
• Perversity of Findings: The High Court did not find any perversity in the trial court’s findings, which was a crucial factor in the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction.
• Individual Acts: The Court highlighted that accused persons should be convicted based on their individual acts, and that A3’s role did not warrant a murder conviction.
• Procedural Lapse: The High Court’s failure to provide an opportunity to be heard on the quantum of sentence was a significant procedural lapse that influenced the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal considerations, with a significant emphasis on the legal principles of presumption of innocence and procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by the need to uphold the principles of justice, ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence and proper legal procedures.

The Supreme Court stated, “There is no room to doubt the powers of the appellate court and that it has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the appellate court has to bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.”

The Court also noted, “The High Court in recording the above conviction has not assigned any good reasons from deviating with the findings returned by the trial court and at the same time has not even stated that the findings so recorded by the trial court in acquitting all the accused, including A1 and A3 are in any way perverse.”

Further, the Court observed, “The principle of according opportunity of hearing to the convict before sentencing him is equally applicable where the sentencing is done by the appellate court.”

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court should not lightly overturn a trial court’s acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse.
• The presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal from the trial court.
• Accused persons must be heard on the quantum of sentence before a sentence is passed by the court, including the appellate court.
• Convictions should be based on individual acts, and not merely on the basis of common intention.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of A1 and A3 and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 28.06.2008.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are perverse. The judgment reinforces the principle of double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused when an acquittal is granted by the trial court. This case also clarifies that an opportunity for hearing on the quantum of sentence is mandatory even at the appellate stage. This judgment reinforces the position that individual acts are the basis for conviction and not common intention alone.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fedrick Cutinha vs. State of Karnataka underscores the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and the presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized that appellate courts should exercise caution when overturning acquittals, especially when the trial court’s findings are not deemed perverse. The judgment also highlights the necessity of providing an opportunity for the accused to be heard on the quantum of sentence, even at the appellate stage. By setting aside the High Court’s conviction, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the critical role of a fair and thorough judicial process.