Date of the Judgment: 13 December 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 732
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal of a murder case based on a different interpretation of the same evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, emphasizing the importance of the trial court’s perspective and the limitations of an appellate court’s review. This judgment highlights the crucial role of the trial court in assessing witness credibility and the stringent standards for overturning an acquittal. The bench comprised of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh.
Case Background
The case involves the murder of a police officer. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Mohan @Srinivas and another, attacked the deceased due to a prior complaint filed by the deceased’s relatives against the mother of A-1. A-1 had also filed a complaint against PW-1, a Sub-Inspector of Police, which led to his suspension. On the day of the incident, the deceased was attacked at a traffic signal on a main road around 5 PM. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of several witnesses, including two police officers (PW-1 and PW-2) who claimed to be chance witnesses, and a doctor (PW-25) who treated the deceased.
The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution’s evidence unreliable. However, the High Court reversed this decision, convicting the accused based on its own interpretation of the same evidence, particularly the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Unknown | Complaint filed against A-1’s mother by PW-4 and PW-5. |
| Unknown | A-1 files complaint against PW-1, leading to his suspension. |
| Around 5 PM | Deceased attacked at a traffic signal on a main road. |
| Around 5.05 PM | Deceased receives treatment from PW-25. |
| Around 5.45 PM | Deceased dies due to multiple injuries. |
| Around 6 PM | PW-1 files a complaint which was registered by PW-28. |
| 03.12.2001 (Approximately 40 days after the incident) | PW-25 provides another certificate at the request of the police, introducing material to indicate a dying declaration. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court, after examining 28 witnesses and various exhibits, acquitted the accused, citing doubts about the credibility of key prosecution witnesses and the lack of concrete evidence. The State appealed to the High Court, which overturned the acquittal. The High Court held that the trial court had erred in its understanding of dying declarations and that the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, and 25 should have been accepted. The High Court also dismissed the contradictions in the testimonies of PW-2 and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that it indicated the investigating officer was biased towards the accused. The High Court also relied on medical evidence and other documents to convict the accused, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment discusses the following legal provisions:
- Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section allows the State to appeal against an order of acquittal.
- Section 384 of the CrPC: This section outlines the powers of the Appellate Court.
- Section 161 of the CrPC: This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police during investigation.
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 506-B of the IPC: This section defines the punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Section 120B of the IPC: This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
- Section 34 of the IPC: This section defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants:
- The appellants argued that PW-1, a Sub-Inspector of Police, could not have been a chance witness because he had a grudge against the accused due to departmental proceedings initiated against him at their instance.
- The trial court had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and found discrepancies in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 did not use his wireless radio or attempt to file a complaint immediately.
- The appellants contended that it was improbable that the deceased would be taken to a hospital 2 kilometers away when a nursing home was just 50 meters from the scene, especially considering the deceased’s serious condition.
- PW-2’s testimony was unreliable due to contradictions between his court deposition and his Section 161 CrPC statement.
- The recovery of the weapon was doubtful and did not align with PW-2’s claim that the accused had attempted to attack him with it.
- The dying declaration (Ex. P-41) was created 40 days after the incident at the insistence of the police and was not credible.
- The High Court should not have reversed the trial court’s acquittal without adequate discussion, particularly when the trial court had the advantage of observing the witnesses in person.
Arguments of the State:
- The State argued that the High Court correctly relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 25.
- PW-25 was an independent witness, and the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 should not be disbelieved just because they were police officers.
- The High Court had considered all relevant materials and there was no need for interference, especially in a case involving the murder of a police officer.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Credibility of PW-1 | PW-1 had a grudge against the accused due to departmental proceedings. | Appellants |
| PW-1 could not have been a chance witness. | Appellants | |
| PW-1 did not use his wireless radio or attempt to file a complaint immediately. | Appellants | |
| PW-1 did not accompany the deceased to the hospital, contradicting PW-25’s testimony. | Appellants | |
| PW-1 was a police officer, so his evidence should not be disbelieved. | State | |
| PW-1’s evidence was crucial and reliable. | State | |
| Credibility of PW-2 | PW-2’s testimony had contradictions with his Section 161 CrPC statement. | Appellants |
| PW-2 did not file a complaint despite being a police officer. | Appellants | |
| PW-2 was a police officer, so his evidence should not be disbelieved. | State | |
| Credibility of PW-25 | PW-25’s testimony was contradictory and unreliable. | Appellants |
| PW-25 introduced the concept of a dying declaration 40 days after the incident, at the insistence of the police. | Appellants | |
| PW-25 was an independent witness and his testimony should be accepted. | State | |
| Dying Declaration | The dying declaration was not credible and was created at the insistence of the police. | Appellants |
| The High Court correctly relied on the dying declaration. | State | |
| Trial Court’s Decision | The trial court’s decision was well-reasoned and based on a thorough analysis of the evidence. | Appellants |
| High Court’s Decision | The High Court correctly reversed the trial court’s acquittal. | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s order of acquittal, particularly when the trial court had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and found it unreliable.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s order of acquittal. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not undertake the necessary scrutiny required under Section 378 read with Section 384 CrPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court’s view should be given due weight, and the High Court should not have reversed the acquittal without sufficient reasons and a thorough analysis of the trial court’s reasoning. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to reiterate the principle that a finding of fact can be held to be perverse if it is arrived at by ignoring relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material. |
| Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to define when a finding of fact can be considered perverse, including when it is against the weight of evidence or defies logic. |
| Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn., (1984) 4 SCC 635 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the definition of a perverse finding of fact. |
| Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the definition of a perverse finding of fact. |
| Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the definition of a perverse finding of fact. |
| Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad, (2001) 1 SCC 501 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the definition of a perverse finding of fact. |
| Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the definition of a perverse finding of fact. |
| Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P., (2009) 10 SCC 636 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the definition of a perverse finding of fact. |
| Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 | Supreme Court of India | The court used this case to highlight that a decision based on no evidence or unreliable evidence is considered perverse. |
| Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to discuss the scope of Section 378 CrPC and the limitations on the High Court’s interference in appeals against acquittal. |
| Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC 228 | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to emphasize that while a High Court can re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, it should give due importance to the trial court’s opinion if it was arrived at after proper appreciation of evidence. |
| Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to emphasize that the High Court should first record its conclusion on whether the trial court’s approach was patently illegal or if its conclusions were wholly untenable before interfering with an order of acquittal. |
| K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 309 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to highlight that the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate evidence and record its own conclusion if the trial court discarded relevant evidence. |
| Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 | Supreme Court of India | The court used this case to clarify that the High Court can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion in an appeal against acquittal, keeping in mind the presumption of innocence. |
| Surajpal Singh v. State, 1951 SCC 1207 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that the appellate court can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions. |
| Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P., 1951 SCC 898 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that the appellate court can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions. |
| K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1979) 1 SCC 355 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to emphasize that the High Court should interfere if the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts and rejects credible evidence for slender reasons. |
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
| Legal Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 378 of the CrPC | Allows the State to appeal against an order of acquittal. |
| Section 384 of the CrPC | Outlines the powers of the Appellate Court. |
| Article 21 of the Constitution of India | Guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The trial court’s decision was well-reasoned and based on a thorough analysis of the evidence. | The Supreme Court agreed with this submission, stating that the trial court had considered the evidence in detail and had provided cogent reasons for its conclusions. |
| PW-1 could not have been a chance witness and his testimony was unreliable. | The Supreme Court upheld this submission, noting that PW-1 had a motive to falsely implicate the accused and that his testimony was riddled with contradictions. |
| PW-2’s testimony was unreliable due to contradictions. | The Supreme Court agreed with this submission, noting that PW-2’s testimony was inconsistent with his earlier statement and that his presence at the scene was doubtful. |
| The dying declaration was not credible and was created at the insistence of the police. | The Supreme Court accepted this submission, stating that the dying declaration was not reliable as it was introduced by PW-25 at the insistence of the police and that there was no evidence to support it. |
| The High Court correctly relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, and 25. | The Supreme Court rejected this submission, stating that the High Court had not adequately considered the trial court’s reasoning for disbelieving these witnesses. |
| The High Court correctly reversed the trial court’s acquittal. | The Supreme Court rejected this submission, holding that the High Court had not conducted the necessary scrutiny required under Section 378 read with Section 384 CrPC. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The Supreme Court relied on Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166*, Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189* and other cases to define when a finding of fact can be considered perverse, emphasizing that a finding must not ignore relevant material or rely on irrelevant material.
- The Court cited Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436*, Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC 228*, Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412*, K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 309*, Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807*, Surajpal Singh v. State, 1951 SCC 1207*, Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P., 1951 SCC 898* and K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1979) 1 SCC 355* to reiterate the principles governing the appellate court’s power to review an acquittal, stressing that the trial court’s view should be given due weight and that the High Court should not interfere unless the trial court’s decision is perverse or based on flawed reasoning.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following:
- Trial Court’s Advantage: The Court emphasized that the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses in person, which is crucial for assessing their credibility.
- Credibility of Witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-25 to be unreliable due to contradictions, inconsistencies, and their vested interests.
- Lack of Dying Declaration: The Court held that there was no credible dying declaration as the evidence of PW-25 did not support it.
- High Court’s Overreach: The Court noted that the High Court had reversed the trial court’s decision without adequately considering the trial court’s reasoning and without providing sufficient justification for overturning the acquittal.
- Presumption of Innocence: The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is strengthened after an acquittal by the trial court.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Trial Court’s Assessment | 30% |
| Doubt on Witness Credibility | 30% |
| Rejection of Dying Declaration | 20% |
| Criticism of High Court’s Approach | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 35% |
| Law | 65% |
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have reversed the trial court’s acquittal based on a different interpretation of the same evidence, especially when the trial court had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and found it unreliable. The Court highlighted that the trial court has the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses, which is crucial for assessing their credibility. The Court noted that the High Court did not adequately consider the trial court’s reasoning and did not provide sufficient justification for overturning the acquittal. The Court also found that the dying declaration was not credible, as it was introduced by PW-25 at the insistence of the police. The Supreme Court stated, “When the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 25 were not accepted by the trial court, there cannot be a dying declaration in existence.” The Court also observed, “The High Court also did not consider the basis upon which the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 25 could be accepted and as to how the various reasons given by the trial court are not acceptable especially when it did not consider the evidence of the other witnesses.” The Court concluded, “In the conspectus of above, we are inclined to hold that the High Court did not undertake the exercise as mandated under Section 378 read with Section 384 CrPC in reversing the reasoned decision rendered by the trial court.”
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of the evidence, finding that the trial court’s decision was more reasonable and plausible. The Court also criticized the High Court for making strong comments on the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the High Court had rendered a conviction on mere surmise, which is not a valid basis for conviction when the testimony of a witness is not believed on cogent reasoning.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Appellate courts should exercise caution when reversing acquittals by trial courts.
- ✓ Trial courts have an advantage in assessing witness credibility due to their direct observation of witnesses.
- ✓ Dying declarations must be credible and supported by evidence.
- ✓ Presumption of innocence is strengthened after an acquittal by the trial court.
- ✓ Appellate courts should not substitute their own views for those of the trial court unless the trial court’s decision is perverse or based on flawed reasoning.
This judgment reinforces the importance of the trial court’s role in the justice system and sets a high bar for appellate courts to overturn acquittals. It emphasizes that the trial court’s perspective should be given due weight and that appellate courts should not substitute their own views unless the trial court’s decision is demonstrably flawed.
Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction passed by the High Court. The acquittal order passed by the Trial Court was restored.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that an appellate court should not reverse a trial court’s acquittal unless the trial court’s decision is perverse or based on flawed reasoning. This judgment reinforces the importance of the trial court’s role in assessing witness credibility and the stringent standards for overturning an acquittal. It also clarifies that the presumption of innocence is strengthened after an acquittal by the trial court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohan @Srinivas vs. State of Karnataka underscores the critical role of trial courts in the Indian judicial system. The Court emphasized that appellate courts must exercise restraint when reviewing acquittals and should not overturn them unless there are clear and compelling reasons. The judgment reinforces the principle that the trial court, having directly observed the witnesses, is in the best position to assess their credibility. By setting aside the High Court’s conviction, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of a thorough and reasoned approach in criminal justice, ensuring that acquittals are not reversed lightly.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Appeals against Acquittal
Child Category: Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 384, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Dying Declaration
Child Category: Murder