Supreme Court overturns High Court’s conviction in murder case: Mohd. Akhtar vs. State of Bihar (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 04 December 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a High Court reverse a trial court’s acquittal in a criminal case based on a different interpretation of the evidence? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Mohd. Akhtar @ Kari & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. The core issue revolved around the High Court’s decision to overturn the trial court’s acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the principles governing appeals against acquittals, highlighting the importance of the trial court’s observations and the presumption of innocence. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao and R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on 05.01.1984, when Md. Abu Daud (PW-6), along with his brother Md. Nadir Sah @ Jumma (deceased), went to the house of Md. Mobin (PW-4) to collect irrigation dues. They were sitting near a fireplace when a mob of 10-11 people, armed with guns and rifles, arrived. The informant, Md. Abu Daud, identified seven of these individuals.

According to the informant, Md. Chamru @ Sahadat warned everyone not to escape, and then Md. Sanjat (Appellant No.3) fired a shot. As the informant, the deceased, and Md. Mobin tried to flee, they were chased by the mob. The deceased was surrounded near the southern wall of Samshul’s house and was shot dead by Md. Chamru @ Sahadat, Md. Jan Alam, and Noor Alam.

The informant and Md. Mobin then rushed to the deceased and found him with bullet injuries. They called for help, and several villagers arrived. The police were informed, and an investigation was initiated.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the Appellants, finding the evidence of the eye witnesses unreliable. The trial court noted discrepancies in the timing of the FIR and the inquest report, and questioned the identification of the accused in the available light. The trial court also highlighted the non-examination of independent witnesses and the previous enmity between the parties.

The High Court, however, overturned the trial court’s decision, holding that the evidence of the eye witnesses was reliable, and that the minor discrepancies were not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The High Court concluded that the accused shared a common intention to kill the deceased and convicted them under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for determination:

1. Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the acquittal of the Appellants and convicting them for an offence of murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principles governing appeals against acquittals. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have overturned the trial court’s acquittal merely because a different view of the evidence was possible. The Court highlighted the importance of the trial court’s observations, the presumption of innocence, and the benefit of doubt.

The ratio of fact to law in the Supreme Court’s decision is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation of the evidence by the High Court but rejected it, emphasizing the principles governing appeals against acquittals. The Court found that the High Court had overstepped its bounds by interfering with the trial court’s decision, which was based on a possible view of the evidence.

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

• The High Court failed to properly apply the principles governing appeals against acquittals.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s acquittal merely because a different view of the evidence was possible.
• The trial court’s acquittal was justified based on a probable view of the evidence.
• The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal.
• No perversity in the judgment of the trial court was demonstrated by the High Court.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Interference with an order of acquittal is not permissible on the ground that a different view is possible.”

“If the acquittal is justified on a probable view taken by the trial court, it should not be interfered with.”

“The High Court ignored the fact that the presumption of innocence in favour of the Appellants is further strengthened by an order of acquittal.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts should be cautious in overturning trial court acquittals.
• The presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal.
• Interference with an acquittal is only justified if the trial court’s decision is palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of the law.
• If two reasonable views are possible, the view favoring the accused should be adopted.

This judgment reinforces the importance of the trial court’s role in assessing evidence and the need for appellate courts to exercise restraint in overturning acquittals. It also highlights the significance of the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the trial court. The bail bonds of Appellant No. 3 were discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that appellate courts should be extremely cautious in overturning acquittals by trial courts. The judgment reinforces the principles that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal, and that interference is only justified if the trial court’s decision is palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of the law. This case does not change the previous position of law but reaffirms it.

Conclusion

In the case of Mohd. Akhtar @ Kari & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction of the Appellants, restoring the trial court’s acquittal. The Supreme Court emphasized the principles governing appeals against acquittals, highlighting the importance of the trial court’s observations, the presumption of innocence, and the benefit of doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder for appellate courts to exercise restraint and caution when reviewing acquittals by trial courts.