Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in murder case: Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda vs. State of Gujarat (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 295
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can a High Court overturn an acquittal by a Trial Court merely because another view of the evidence is possible? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of innocence and the limitations on appellate review of acquittals. The Court overturned the conviction by the High Court, reinstating the Trial Court’s acquittal. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on September 17, 1996, where the appellants, a father and son, were accused of assaulting one Punjabhai, who later died from his injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellants used pipes and sticks to inflict the injuries. The deceased was engaged in the business of diamond polishing. PW-1, the brother of the deceased, was informed about the assault by one Vajsurbhai and found his brother being taken to the hospital in a tempo. The deceased was initially taken to a clinic and then shifted to a private hospital in Bhavnagar, where he succumbed to his injuries on September 18, 1996.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants on July 5, 1997. The State of Gujarat appealed this acquittal to the High Court. The High Court, on December 14, 2018, overturned the acquittal, convicting the appellants under Section 302, read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court then heard the appeal against this High Court decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Section 302 of the IPC states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the IPC states:
“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.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The High Court erred by relying on the police statement of PW-4, which is only admissible for contradicting a witness, and not as substantive evidence.
• The High Court wrongly placed the burden on the appellants to prove their innocence, instead of the prosecution having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The High Court failed to consider whether the Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on the evidence.
• The High Court did not find that the only possible view based on the evidence was the guilt of the appellants.

State’s Submissions:

• The High Court was duty-bound to re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• The evidence of PW-4, an eye-witness, was credible and sufficient to interfere with the acquittal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the acquittal by the Trial Court.
2. Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal.
3. Whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and the burden of proof.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – regarding the use of statements recorded by the police.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in overturning the acquittal. The Court emphasized that an appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal if the trial court’s view was not a possible one. The Court also noted that the High Court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the appellants.

The Court observed that the High Court had not addressed the main question of whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view based on evidence on record. The Supreme Court stated that the High Court had gone to the extent of recording a finding that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence in their support, which is contrary to the law.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had brushed aside the statement of PW-5, the doctor, by observing that once the police recorded statements of the Doctor and PW-4, the statements of PW-4 and the Doctor before the Court became meaningless which is not correct.

The Supreme Court stated, “Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Court also stated, “The High Court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused.”

The Court further noted, “Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The High Court’s failure to consider whether the Trial Court’s view was a plausible one.
• The High Court’s incorrect placement of the burden of proof on the appellants.
• The High Court’s misinterpretation of the evidentiary value of police statements.
• The inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly regarding the testimony of PW-4.

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court’s view was impossible based on the evidence.
• The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution, and the accused is not required to prove their innocence.
• Police statements can only be used to contradict a witness and not as substantive evidence.
• The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle that must be upheld in criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal. The bail bonds of the second appellant were cancelled, and the first appellant was ordered to be set at liberty unless required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court’s view was impossible based on the evidence, and the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. This judgment reinforces the principles governing appeals against acquittal and the importance of the presumption of innocence. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda vs. State of Gujarat reinforces the principles governing appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of innocence and the limitations on appellate review. The Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, reinstating the Trial Court’s acquittal, underscoring that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s view was impossible based on the evidence.