Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 48
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B. V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court dismiss an appeal against acquittal without a detailed re-appreciation of evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a criminal appeal, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough review by the first appellate court. This case highlights the importance of due process and the principles that govern appeals against acquittals. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originates from a criminal matter where the Special Court acquitted the accused of offenses under Sections 354, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the Special Court convicted the accused for offenses under Sections 452, 323/34, and 325/34 of the IPC. The victim, dissatisfied with the acquittal, appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court dismissed the appeal in a one-page order, leading the victim to approach the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Special Court convicts accused under Sections 452, 323/34, and 325/34 of the IPC but acquits them under Sections 354, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. |
| N/A | Victim appeals to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench against the acquittal. |
| 06.12.2019 | High Court dismisses the victim’s appeal in a one-page order. |
| 18.01.2022 | Supreme Court remands the case back to the High Court for a fresh review. |
Course of Proceedings
The Special Court convicted the accused for certain offenses but acquitted them of others. The victim then appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal in a brief order. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s order lacked a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence, which is required in appeals against acquittal. This led to the Supreme Court remanding the case back to the High Court for a fresh review.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily concerns the procedure for handling appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court referred to several precedents to emphasize the duties of a first appellate court when dealing with acquittals. It stressed that the High Court should re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and the reasoning given by the Trial Court. The Court also discussed the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal, as outlined in various cases.
Arguments
The arguments of the respective parties were not discussed on merits by the Supreme Court in the present case. The Court refrained from delving into the specifics of the arguments made by the counsels for the appellant, the State, and the accused, as it decided to remand the matter back to the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that any observations on the merits of the case might influence the High Court’s decision on remand.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this judgment, as it primarily focused on the procedural lapse by the High Court in not re-appreciating the evidence in an appeal against acquittal. The core issue was whether the High Court had correctly followed the procedure for dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court properly reviewed the Trial Court’s acquittal order? | The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly re-appreciate the evidence, which is required in appeals against acquittal. The High Court’s judgment was deemed unsustainable due to its failure to conduct a detailed review of the evidence and reasoning of the Trial Court. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities to support its decision:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC 228 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that once an appeal against acquittal is entertained, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. |
| Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 116 | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to reiterate the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, including the need for the appellate court to consider the entire evidence and to determine if the trial court’s views were perverse. |
| Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 | Supreme Court of India | The court referred to this case to highlight the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal, emphasizing that the appellate court should consider the entire evidence and whether the trial court’s views were perverse or unsustainable. |
| Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 | Privy Council | The Privy Council’s observations on the weight to be given to the trial judge’s views on witness credibility and the presumption of innocence were cited. |
| Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as part of a series of cases that consistently followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. |
| Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as part of a series of cases that consistently followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. |
| M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as part of a series of cases that consistently followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. |
| Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC 450 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as part of a series of cases that consistently followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. |
| Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as part of a series of cases that consistently followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. |
| Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as part of a series of cases that consistently followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. |
| State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited as part of a series of cases that consistently followed the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor. |
| Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 | Supreme Court of India | The court reiterated the legal position that an appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate, and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. |
| Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 | Supreme Court of India | The court reiterated that the appellate court should bear in mind that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence and that due weight should be given to the trial court’s decision. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368 | Supreme Court of India | The court emphasized that an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with, even if the court believes there is some evidence pointing towards the accused. |
| State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271 | Supreme Court of India | The court provided illustrative circumstances in which a court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal, including errors of law, conclusions contrary to evidence, and a patently illegal approach to evidence. |
| Dhanapal v. State (2009) 10 SCC 401 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to support the principles outlined in State of U.P. v. Banne. |
| Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. (1984) 4 SCC 635 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse, such as when relevant material is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. |
| Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse, such as when relevant material is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. |
| Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE 1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse, such as when relevant material is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. |
| Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse, such as when relevant material is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. |
| Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2009) 10 SCC 636 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse, such as when relevant material is ignored or irrelevant material is considered. |
| Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited to support the principle that a decision is perverse if it is based on no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence. |
| Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka (2019) 5 SCC 436 | Supreme Court of India | The court considered the scope of Section 378 CrPC and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. |
| Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 | Supreme Court of India | This case was referred to in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala regarding the procedure for appellate courts when reversing an acquittal. |
| K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309 | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to support the principle that the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and record its own conclusion if the trial court’s approach was improper. |
| Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 | Supreme Court of India | The Court clarified that the High Court is not limited to setting aside acquittals only if they are perverse but can review the entire evidence. |
| Surajpal Singh v. State 1951 SCC 1207 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited in Atley v. State of U.P. regarding the powers of the appellate court in reviewing evidence. |
| Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P. 1951 SCC 898 | Supreme Court of India | This case was cited in Atley v. State of U.P. regarding the powers of the appellate court in reviewing evidence. |
| K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355 | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to support the principle that the High Court should interfere if the trial court rejects credible evidence for flimsy reasons. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was unsustainable because it did not re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. The High Court only made general observations on the deposition of the witnesses without a detailed review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court, as a first appellate court, was required to re-appreciate the evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court. The matter was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Submissions made by the Appellant (Victim) | The Supreme Court did not address the submissions on merits, as the case was remanded to the High Court. |
| Submissions made by the State | The Supreme Court did not address the submissions on merits, as the case was remanded to the High Court. |
| Submissions made by the Accused | The Supreme Court did not address the submissions on merits, as the case was remanded to the High Court. |
| Authority | How the Authority was Viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC 228 | Cited to emphasize the High Court’s duty to re-appreciate evidence in appeals against acquittal. |
| Guru Dutt Pathak Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 116 | Cited to reiterate the principles for appeals against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC. |
| Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 | Cited to highlight guidelines for the High Court when interfering with acquittals. |
| Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 | Cited for the principle of giving weight to the trial judge’s views and the presumption of innocence. |
| Tulsiram Kanu v. State, AIR 1954 SC 1 | Followed as part of a series of cases adhering to the principles in Sheo Swarup. |
| Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216 | Followed as part of a series of cases adhering to the principles in Sheo Swarup. |
| M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200 | Followed as part of a series of cases adhering to the principles in Sheo Swarup. |
| Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC 450 | Followed as part of a series of cases adhering to the principles in Sheo Swarup. |
| Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 | Followed as part of a series of cases adhering to the principles in Sheo Swarup. |
| Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85 | Followed as part of a series of cases adhering to the principles in Sheo Swarup. |
| State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 | Followed as part of a series of cases adhering to the principles in Sheo Swarup. |
| Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 | Cited to emphasize the appellate court’s power to review evidence. |
| Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 | Cited to reinforce the importance of the trial court’s view and the presumption of innocence. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368 | Cited to highlight that acquittals should not be lightly interfered with. |
| State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271 | Cited for illustrative circumstances justifying interference with acquittals. |
| Dhanapal v. State (2009) 10 SCC 401 | Followed to support the principles in State of U.P. v. Banne. |
| Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. (1984) 4 SCC 635 | Cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse. |
| Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 | Cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse. |
| Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE 1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 | Cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse. |
| Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501 | Cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse. |
| Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2009) 10 SCC 636 | Cited to define when findings of fact can be considered perverse. |
| Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10 | Cited to support the principle that a decision is perverse if it is based on no evidence. |
| Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka (2019) 5 SCC 436 | Cited for the scope of Section 378 CrPC and High Court’s interference in appeals against acquittal. |
| Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 | Referred to in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala regarding the procedure for appellate courts when reversing an acquittal. |
| K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309 | Used to support the principle that the High Court can re-appreciate evidence if the trial court’s approach was improper. |
| Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 | Cited to clarify that the High Court is not limited to setting aside acquittals only if they are perverse. |
| Surajpal Singh v. State 1951 SCC 1207 | Cited in Atley v. State of U.P. regarding the powers of the appellate court in reviewing evidence. |
| Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P. 1951 SCC 898 | Cited in Atley v. State of U.P. regarding the powers of the appellate court in reviewing evidence. |
| K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355 | Used to support the principle that the High Court should interfere if the trial court rejects credible evidence for flimsy reasons. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the procedural lapse on the part of the High Court. The Court emphasized that in appeals against acquittal, the High Court must conduct a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court. The absence of such a detailed review was the main reason for the Supreme Court to remand the case back to the High Court. The Court was also guided by the principle that a first appellate court has a duty to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, especially in cases involving acquittals.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Compliance | 60% |
| Importance of Re-appreciation of Evidence | 30% |
| Ensuring Justice | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning:
Trial Court Acquits Accused
Victim Appeals to High Court
High Court Dismisses Appeal with a one page order
Supreme Court Reviews High Court Order
Supreme Court Finds High Court Did Not Re-appreciate Evidence
Supreme Court Remands Case to High Court for Fresh Review
The Supreme Court considered that the High Court’s order was not in accordance with the established procedure for dealing with appeals against acquittals. The High Court did not engage in a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence, which is a crucial requirement. The Court noted that the High Court’s order was a one-page judgment that lacked any substantial analysis of the evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court. This was considered a significant oversight, as the first appellate court has a duty to ensure that the decision of the Trial Court is correct and in accordance with the evidence on record. The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the case back for a fresh review.
The Supreme Court observed, “We are constrained to observe that this is not the manner in which the High Court should have dealt with the appeal against an order of acquittal which as such is a first appeal against the order of acquittal.” The court further noted, “The High Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record as it was dealing with a first appeal.” Additionally, the Supreme Court stated, “On perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we find that decision of the High Court is totally erroneous as it has ignored the settled legal position.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ First appellate courts, especially High Courts, must conduct a thorough re-appreciation of evidence when dealing with appeals against acquittals.
- ✓ A one-page order dismissing an appeal against acquittal without detailed reasoning is not sustainable.
- ✓ The High Court must consider the reasoning of the Trial Court and independently assess the evidence on record.
- ✓ The Supreme Court will intervene if the High Court fails to follow the established procedure for appeals against acquittals.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court. The High Court was directed to decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with the law, and on its own merits, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court. The High Court was also requested to dispose of the appeal at the earliest.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a first appellate court, particularly a High Court, must conduct a detailed re-appreciation of evidence when dealing with an appeal against acquittal. This reaffirms the established legal position that the appellate court’s role is not merely to concur with the trial court but to independently assess the evidence and reasoning. This judgment does not introduce a new legal principle but reinforces the existing principles regarding the handling of appeals against acquittals, ensuring that the appellate process is thorough and just.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P. emphasizes the crucial role of the High Court as a first appellate court in cases of acquittal. The judgment underscores the need for a comprehensive review of evidence and reasoning, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. By remanding the case, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of procedural correctness and thorough judicial review in the criminal justice system.
Category:
- Criminal Law
- Appeals against Acquittal
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: What is an appeal against acquittal?
A: An appeal against acquittal is a legal process where a higher court reviews a lower court’s decision to acquit an accused person. This is typically done when the prosecution believes the lower court made an error in its judgment.
Q: What is the role of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal?
A: The High Court, as a first appellate court, is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and the reasoning given by the Trial Court. It cannot simply concur with the lower court’s decision but must independently assess the case.
Q: What does “re-appreciation of evidence” mean?
A: Re-appreciation of evidence means that the appellate court must independently review all the evidence presented in the case, including witness testimonies and documents, and come to its own conclusion based on that evidence.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court remand the case back to the High Court?
A: The Supreme Court remanded the case because the High Court had dismissed the appeal in a one-page order without conducting a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence, which is a mandatory requirement in appeals against acquittal.
Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?
A: This judgment reinforces the importance of thorough judicial review in appeals against acquittal. It sets a precedent that High Courts must conduct a detailed review of evidence and reasoning in such cases, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.
Source: Geeta Devi vs. State of U.P.