Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in murder case: Babu Sahebagouda vs State of Karnataka (2024)

Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 320

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a criminal case based on the same evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the stringent limitations on appellate courts when reviewing acquittals. The case involved a murder conviction by the High Court of Karnataka, which the Supreme Court ultimately overturned. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Mehta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Malagounda, son of the complainant Chanagouda (PW-1), in Babanagar village, Bijapur, Karnataka. On September 19, 2001, Malagounda, along with laborers, went to their land to build a bund (check dam). Around 4:00 PM, while returning to the village, they were allegedly attacked by Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (A-1), Alagond Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (A-2), Mudakappa @ Gadegappa Rudragoudar (A-3), and others. The assailants, armed with weapons, assaulted Malagounda, who later died. The complainant (PW-1) reported the incident to the police the next morning, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

The trial court initially acquitted all six accused, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and doubts about the prosecution’s case. However, the High Court of Karnataka reversed the acquittal of A-1, A-2, and A-3, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This High Court decision led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, after examining 27 witnesses and various documents, acquitted all six accused, including A-1, A-2, and A-3. The trial court noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case:

• Witnesses contradicted each other regarding the identities of the assailants.
• One witness did not implicate A-4, despite being a laborer present at the scene.
• Another witness’s testimony contradicted that of other eyewitnesses.
• The trial court doubted the prosecution’s claim that the deceased and laborers were working on a bund due to continuous rainfall.
• The trial court concluded that the complaint was a post-investigation document, inadmissible under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The medical officer’s opinion on the time of death contradicted the prosecution’s timeline.
• The complainant’s statement about when he was shown the weapons contradicted the Investigating Officer’s claim about when they were recovered.

The State of Karnataka appealed the acquittal to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court reversed the acquittal of A-1, A-2, and A-3, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court dismissed the appeal against A-5 and A-6, and the appeal against A-4 abated due to his death. This reversal led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. “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, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. “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.”
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the concept of vicarious liability in cases of unlawful assembly.
• Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with statements made to the police during investigation. It states that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall be signed by the person making it, nor shall it be used in evidence, except in certain circumstances.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved. “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal, which was based on a well-reasoned judgment. The appellate court should be slow to interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are patently illegal or perverse.
• The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and recorded its own conclusions, which is not the correct approach in an appeal against acquittal.
• The eyewitnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable. The complainant (PW-1) and the laborers did not promptly report the incident to the police, raising doubts about their presence at the scene.
• The complainant (PW-1) admitted that the police showed him the weapons on the day of the incident itself, contradicting the Investigating Officer’s claim of later recovery.
• The FIR was a post-investigation document, as the police were informed about the incident by the complainant’s sons on the night of the incident itself, yet the FIR was registered much later.
• The medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicted the prosecution’s timeline of the incident.
• The disclosure statements and recovery memos did not bear the signatures or thumb impressions of the accused and hence the recoveries cannot be attributed to the accused.
• The prosecution failed to prove the disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Respondent-State’s Arguments:

• The High Court correctly re-appreciated the evidence and concluded that the eyewitness testimonies were convincing and did not suffer from significant contradictions.
• The FIR was promptly lodged, and there was no delay that could cast doubt on the prosecution’s story.
• The discrepancies highlighted by the trial court were trivial and did not justify discarding the eyewitnesses’ evidence.
• The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal based on the evidence on record.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal of the accused?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471]* and H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 581]*: These cases were relied upon to reiterate the principles governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The Court emphasized that the appellate court should be slow to intervene with an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are patently illegal or perverse.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya [AIR 1960 SC 1125]*: This case was relied upon to reiterate that only the part of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
• Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1983) 1 SCC 143]*: This case was relied upon to emphasize the obligation of the Investigating Officer to state and record who gave the information and what words were used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving the information.
• Subramanya v. State of Karnataka [2022 SCC Online SC 1400]*: This case was relied upon to highlight the procedure for proving the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court held that the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the panchnama.
• Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396]*: This case was relied upon to reiterate that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Testimony: The court noted significant contradictions and infirmities in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, making their evidence unreliable.
• Doubtful FIR: The court found that the FIR was likely a post-investigation document, not a prompt report of the incident.
• Contradictory Medical Evidence: The medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicted the prosecution’s timeline of the incident.
• Improper Recovery of Weapons: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Adherence to Principles of Appellate Review: The court emphasized that the High Court did not adhere to the principles governing appeals against acquittals, re-appreciating the evidence as a first court and ignoring the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis and legal principles. The court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions. Additionally, the court emphasized the legal principles governing appellate review, particularly the limitations on reversing acquittals.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by re-appreciating the evidence as a first court, rather than focusing on whether the trial court’s decision was perverse or illegal.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and a strict adherence to the principles governing appeals against acquittals. The court concluded that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, and the High Court was not justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court did not adhere to the principles governing appeals against acquittals.
• The eyewitness testimonies were unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions.
• The FIR was likely a post-investigation document.
• The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s timeline.
• The prosecution failed to prove the disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The trial court’s judgment was a plausible and justifiable view based on the evidence.

“The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent finding s on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendere d by the trial Court.”

“The complainant( PW-1) stated in his evidence that he saw the brutal assault launched by the appel lants and A -4(Saheb agouda) on his son Malagou nda which took place at 4.00 pm or 5.00 pm in the evening of 19th September, 2001.”

“Thus, we are of the firm opinion that neither the disclosure memos were proved in accordance with law nor the recovery of the weapons from open spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied upon by the High Court as incriminating material so as to reverse the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.”

Key Takeaways

• Limitations on Appellate Review: The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts should be very cautious when reviewing acquittals by trial courts. The appellate court should not re-appreciate the evidence as a first court but should only interfere if the trial court’s decision is perverse, illegal, or based on a misreading of evidence.
• Importance of Reliable Evidence: The case highlights the importance of reliable and consistent eyewitness testimony and the need for prompt reporting of incidents to the police. Any inconsistency or contradiction in the evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Proper Procedure for Disclosure Statements: The judgment emphasizes the need to follow the proper procedure for recording disclosure statements and recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Investigating Officer must accurately record the conversation with the accused, and the disclosure statement must be properly proved.
• Significance of Medical Evidence: The case underscores the importance of medical evidence in criminal cases. Any contradiction between the medical evidence and the prosecution’s timeline can weaken their case.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases, particularly in criminal appeals. It serves as a reminder to appellate courts to respect the trial court’s findings and to exercise caution when reversing acquittals. The judgment also emphasizes the need for thorough and reliable evidence in criminal prosecutions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused appellants, who were on bail, need not surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should be very slow to intervene with the acquittal of an accused as recorded by the trial court. Acquittal can be reversed only if the findings recorded by the trial court are found to be patently illegal or perverse or if the only view possible on the basis of the evidence available on record points towards the guilt of the accused. If two views are possible, the acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be interfered with unless perversity or misreading of evidence is reflected from the judgment recording acquittal.

This judgment does not change any previous position of law, but rather reinforces the established principles regarding appellate review of acquittals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the limited scope of appellate review against acquittals. The Court found that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by re-appreciating the evidence as a first court and ignoring the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment. The Supreme Court also found that the prosecution’s case was full of infirmities and contradictions. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts should be very cautious when reviewing acquittals by trial courts and should only interfere if the trial court’s decision is perverse, illegal, or based on a misreading of evidence. This case serves as an important reminder of the need for thorough and reliable evidence in criminal prosecutions and the limitations on appellate review of acquittals.