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

Date of the Judgment: April 10, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 295

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a High Court overturn a Trial Court’s acquittal 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 limits of appellate review. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating the Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of one Punjabhai, who was allegedly assaulted by the appellants, a father and son, on September 17, 1996. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked Punjabhai with pipes and sticks, leading to his death. The incident occurred around 9:45 PM when the deceased’s brother, PW-1 Danabhai, was informed about the assault. The deceased was taken to a clinic and then to a private hospital in Bhavnagar, where he succumbed to his injuries on the morning of September 18, 1996. The appellants were initially acquitted by the Sessions Court on July 5, 1997, but the High Court overturned this acquittal on December 14, 2018, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court then heard the appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court initially 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 Sessions Court’s decision, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC. The High Court relied on the police statement of PW-4 and held that the appellants failed to prove their innocence. This High Court judgment was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

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 addresses 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 [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.”

The legal framework also includes principles related to the burden of proof in criminal cases, where the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet, and the accused is not required to prove their innocence unless there is a specific reverse onus clause in the law.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court erred in overturning the acquittal by relying on the police statement of PW-4.
• The High Court wrongly placed the burden on the appellants to prove their innocence.
• The High Court failed to consider whether the Trial Court’s view was a possible one based on the evidence.
• The High Court did not record a finding that the only possible view was that the appellants were guilty.

State of Gujarat’s Arguments:

• The High Court was duty-bound to re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
• PW-4’s testimony was credible and inspired confidence.
• The High Court was correct in interfering with the order of acquittal.

The appellants argued that the High Court’s approach was flawed as it did not adhere to the principles governing appeals against acquittals. They contended that the High Court should not have reversed the acquittal unless the Trial Court’s view was perverse and the only possible conclusion was the appellants’ guilt. The State, on the other hand, maintained that the High Court rightly re-evaluated the evidence and found the appellants guilty based on the testimony of PW-4.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court?
2. Whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence on record?
3. Whether the High Court had correctly applied the principles relating to the burden of proof in a criminal trial?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Statements to police not to be signed; use of statements in evidence.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court explained the provision for punishment of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.
• The Court explained the provision for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention under Section 34, Indian Penal Code.
• The Court explained that the statements recorded by police under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness, as per Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have overturned the acquittal unless it found the Trial Court’s view to be perverse and that the only possible conclusion was the guilt of the accused. The Court also highlighted the High Court’s error in shifting the burden of proof onto the accused and its reliance on the police statement of PW-4, which is not permissible under the law.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles governing appeals against acquittals and the burden of proof in criminal cases, with a substantial consideration of the factual discrepancies in the witness testimonies. The Court’s emphasis on the legal framework and the correct application of legal principles indicates a higher percentage for the “Law” category.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the High Court’s decision, finding errors in its approach. The Court emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence and the correct application of legal principles, ultimately concluding that the High Court’s decision was flawed.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the well-established principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused. The Court found that the High Court had not addressed the main question of whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible one based on the evidence. Additionally, the High Court had erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the accused and in relying on the police statement of PW-4, which is not permissible under Section 162 of the CrPC. The Court concluded that the High Court’s interference with the Trial Court’s acquittal was not justified.

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

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised of two judges, both of whom agreed on the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse and the only possible conclusion is the guilt of the accused.
• The presumption of innocence is strengthened by an order of acquittal.
• The burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Police statements under Section 161 of the CrPC can only be used to contradict a witness, not as substantive evidence.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal principles in criminal appeals.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, thereby restoring 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 cannot overturn an order of acquittal merely because another view of the evidence is possible. The appellate court must find that the trial court’s view was perverse and that the only possible conclusion was the guilt of the accused. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding appeals against acquittals and the burden of proof in criminal cases. It does not introduce any new legal principles but clarifies the application of existing ones.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, reinstating the Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellants. The Court emphasized that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse and the only possible conclusion is the guilt of the accused. This judgment underscores the importance of the presumption of innocence and the correct application of legal principles in criminal appeals.