Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in murder case: Mallappa vs. State of Karnataka (2024) INSC 104 (12 February 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2024

Citation: (2024) INSC 104

Judges: Bela M. Trivedi, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s acquittal in a criminal case simply because it has a different view of the evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question regarding the limits of appellate power in criminal cases. This judgment clarifies when a High Court can reverse a trial court’s decision to acquit an accused, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of innocence. The bench comprised Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, with the judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Marthandappa, who was allegedly having an illicit relationship with Nagamma, the wife of one of the accused. This alleged affair led to strained relations between Marthandappa and the accused. On June 28, 1997, Marthandappa, along with PW3 and PW4, were traveling in a bullock cart to cultivate their lands. Around 4 PM, they were ambushed by eight individuals (A1 to A8), who attacked Marthandappa with axes, knives, and clubs. PW4 was also injured in the attack. PW3, an eyewitness, hid in nearby bushes and later informed Marthandappa’s father, PW2, about the incident the next day. PW2 then filed a complaint with the police.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court/Fast Track Court -I at Gulbarga acquitted all eight accused on March 24, 2005. The State of Karnataka appealed this decision, and the High Court of Karnataka reversed the acquittal for three of the accused (A3, A4, and A5), convicting them of murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment on May 31, 2010. The High Court upheld the acquittal of the other accused. The convicted individuals then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves charges under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code:

• Section 147, Indian Penal Code: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code: Rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code: Attempt to murder.
• Section 504, Indian Penal Code: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

The judgment also discusses the principles of appellate review in criminal cases, particularly concerning the reversal of acquittals by trial courts.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence without finding any fault in the Trial Court’s assessment.
• Re-appreciation of evidence at the appellate stage is not permissible unless a grave error is found in the Trial Court’s view.
• If the evidence allows for two possible views, the Trial Court’s decision should not be reversed simply because another view is possible.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence, leading to an incorrect acquittal.
• The testimonies of PW3 and PW4 were wrongly rejected by the Trial Court, despite PW3 being an eyewitness and PW4 being a victim of the assault.
• The High Court is fully empowered to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion if a grave error is found in the Trial Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the order of acquittal by the Trial Court and convicting the accused persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to emphasize the limited scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal. The Court highlighted that the High Court should not interfere with the Trial Court’s decision if the Trial Court’s view is a plausible one. The Court also emphasized that the presumption of innocence is reinforced when a trial court acquits an accused.

• Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The court followed this case to reiterate that the High Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal if the trial court’s view is a possible one.
• Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N. [CITATION]: The court relied on this case to support the principle that if the trial court’s appreciation of evidence is reasonable, interference in appeal is not permissible.
• Sanjeev v. State of H.P. [CITATION]: The court used this case to summarize the approach of the appellate court while deciding an appeal against an acquittal.
• Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka [CITATION] and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. [CITATION]: These cases were used to emphasize that the reasons that led the trial court to acquit the accused must be addressed by the appellate court.
• Atley v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The court cited this case to highlight that the normal presumption of innocence is reinforced when the trial court acquits the accused.
• Sambasivan v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: This case was used to state that the appellate court should be slow to interfere with an acquittal if two views are possible from the evidence.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The court referred to this case to explain the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: This case was used to differentiate between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”.
• Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]: The court cited this case to emphasize that an appellate court should consider all matters on record and the reasons given by the trial court in support of its order of acquittal.
• Sheo Swarup case [CITATION]: The court used this case as a guide for the appellate court’s approach in an appeal against acquittal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of PW3 and PW4 to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and their conduct after the incident. The court noted that PW3’s actions after the incident were not that of a reasonable man and that his conduct was artificial. The court also noted that the injuries of PW4 were simple in nature and did not corroborate with the nature of assault as deposed by the witnesses.
• Trial Court’s Reasoning: The Court noted that the Trial Court had thoroughly appreciated the evidence and its view was legally permissible. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had reversed the decision without identifying any illegality, error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.
• Appellate Review Limits: The Court reiterated that the High Court should not reverse an acquittal based on a mere difference of opinion but should only do so if there is an illegality, perversity, or error of law or fact. The court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal and that the appellate court should be slow to interfere.
• Chain of Circumstances: The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances. The court noted the contradictions between oral testimonies and medical examination reports, failure to seize essential materials from the scene of the crime, and failure to explain the mode of conveyance of the witnesses.

The Court emphasized that the distinction between “may have” and “must have” is a legal distinction, and the court must be convinced that the accused “must have” committed the offense to sustain a conviction.

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

“If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal.”

“Appreciation of partial evidence is no appreciation at all, and is bound to lead to absurd results.”

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A High Court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal merely because it has a different view of the evidence.
• The presumption of innocence is strengthened when a trial court acquits an accused.
• Appellate courts should be slow to interfere with acquittals unless there is a clear error of law or fact, or perversity in the trial court’s decision.
• The credibility of witnesses and the consistency of their testimonies are crucial in determining guilt.
• The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the appellants if they were in custody.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles regarding the scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a High Court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal unless there is a clear error of law, fact, or perversity in the trial court’s decision. This judgment reinforces the importance of the presumption of innocence and the limited scope of appellate interference in acquittals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellants. The Supreme Court emphasized that a High Court should not reverse an acquittal unless there is a clear error of law or fact, or perversity in the trial court’s decision. This judgment reinforces the importance of the presumption of innocence and the limited scope of appellate interference in acquittals.