Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case: Sudha Renukaiah & Ors. vs. State of A.P. (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 367

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.

Can a High Court overturn a Trial Court’s acquittal in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on the principles governing appellate review of acquittals. The case involves a gruesome double murder, where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had reversed the Trial Court’s decision, convicting the accused. This judgment examines whether the High Court was correct in its approach and whether the evidence justified the reversal.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examines the correctness of the High Court’s decision to overturn the Trial Court’s acquittal in a double murder case. The bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered a unanimous judgment, with the opinion authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The case arises from a long-standing feud between two factions in Vellaluru village. On February 7, 2003, a member of the complainant’s party was killed, leading to a case registered at Ponnur Rural Police Station. Subsequently, another case was registered against the deceased in the present case, Somarowthu Tirupathirao and Somarowthu Siva Sankara Rao, and others for the murder of Sooda China Veeraiah. They were arrested and granted conditional bail, requiring them to stay in Bapatla, report daily to the police station, and appear in the Ponnur Court weekly.

On October 10, 2003, while returning from Ponnur Court, the two deceased, along with several witnesses, were attacked. The accused, allegedly armed with axes, knives, rods, and sticks, ambushed them using a lorry. Tirupathirao died on the spot, and Siva Sankara Rao died later in the hospital. One of the witnesses, PW.5, was also injured in the attack. The police registered a case based on the statement of PW.1, Sivarama Krishnaiah.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, citing contradictions and omissions in the eyewitness accounts and discrepancies between the medical and ocular evidence. Specifically, the Trial Court noted that the medical evidence did not support injuries caused by a battle axe or sharp-edged weapons like a hunting sickle.

The State of A.P. filed a Criminal Appeal (No. 340 of 2009), and the wife of the deceased, Siva Sankara Rao, filed a Criminal Revision (No. 643 of 2008). The High Court allowed both the appeal and revision, setting aside the Trial Court’s acquittal and convicting A.1 to A.3, A.5 to A.7, and A.11 under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court found the eyewitness accounts credible and the medical evidence corroborative. The acquittal of A.12 to A.19 was affirmed. The convicted accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the application of the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 149: This section defines the concept of common intention in unlawful assembly. It states, “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”

These sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are applicable in this case as the accused were charged with murder and being part of an unlawful assembly with a common intention to commit the crime.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Trial Court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, and the High Court should not have interfered.
• Even if two views were possible, the Trial Court’s view should have been upheld.
• The medical evidence did not corroborate the eyewitness accounts.
• The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased and eyewitnesses were required to attend the Ponnur Court.
• There was a long-standing enmity between the parties, leading to the false implication of the accused.
• The weapons seized were not shown to the doctors to ascertain if the injuries could have been caused by them.

State’s Arguments:

• The High Court rightly reversed the acquittal.
• The eyewitness accounts were reliable, and the Trial Court discarded them without sufficient reason.
• The injured witness, PW.5, clearly identified the accused and their roles.
• The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts.
• The eyewitnesses were family members accompanying the deceased, and their testimony should not be discarded as interested witnesses.

The core of the appellants’ argument was that the High Court should not have overturned the Trial Court’s acquittal, especially when the medical evidence did not fully support the eyewitness accounts. The State, on the other hand, contended that the High Court correctly re-evaluated the evidence and found it credible and consistent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the Duty of the Court and Prosecution:

• Kartarey and others vs. State of U.P., 1976 AIR SC 76: The Court emphasized the duty of the prosecution and the court to show the alleged weapon of offense to the medical witness to get their opinion on whether the injuries could have been caused by the weapon.

On Appreciation of Evidence:

• C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567: The Court held that even if the investigating agency is negligent, the court must examine the evidence to find out the truth.
• Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328: The Court stated that it is unreasonable to expect a witness to give a perfect report of injuries caused by each accused, especially when the incident happened long ago.

On Group Rivalries:

• Eknath Ganpat Aher and others vs. State of Maharasthra and others, (2010) 6 SCC 519: The Court cautioned that in cases of group rivalries, there is a tendency to implicate as many persons as possible, and the court must be cautious and sift the evidence carefully.

On Appellate Powers:

• Dhanpal vs. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401: The Court reiterated that if the Trial Court’s view is possible or plausible, the High Court should not substitute it with its own view.
• State of U.P vs. Anil Singh, (1988)( Supp). SCC 686: The Court stated that it will not interfere with an order of acquittal if two views are reasonably possible, but it will interfere if the acquittal is perverse or manifestly illegal.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to *Kartarey and others vs. State of U.P., 1976 AIR SC 76*, regarding the duty to show weapons to medical witnesses, but found it inconsequential in this case due to the consistency between medical and ocular evidence.
• The Court relied on *C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567*, to emphasize that the court must examine evidence despite lapses in the investigation.
• The Court cited *Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328*, to highlight that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies are inconsequential.
• The Court acknowledged *Eknath Ganpat Aher and others vs. State of Maharasthra and others, (2010) 6 SCC 519*, regarding caution in group rivalry cases but found the eyewitness accounts reliable.
• The Court referred to *Dhanpal vs. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401*, regarding limitations on appellate power but found the Trial Court’s view to be perverse.
• The Court cited *State of U.P vs. Anil Singh, (1988)( Supp). SCC 686*, to emphasize that the court can interfere with an acquittal if it is perverse or illegal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, particularly that of the injured witness (PW.5), and the corroborating medical evidence. The Court found the Trial Court’s reasons for discarding the evidence to be perverse and inconsistent with the facts presented. The High Court’s re-appreciation of the evidence was deemed correct, as it was based on a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances. The Court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements should not invalidate credible testimony, and that the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the factual evidence presented, with a significant emphasis on the reliability of the eyewitness testimony and the corroborating medical evidence. The legal considerations, while important, played a secondary role in the Court’s determination.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the Trial Court’s acquittal, the High Court’s reversal, and the evidence presented. It found the Trial Court’s reasoning to be flawed and the High Court’s decision to be correct, thus upholding the conviction.

The Court rejected the argument that the medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence, stating that the injuries could have been caused by the weapons mentioned by the witnesses. The Court also rejected the argument that the witnesses were not required to be at the Ponnur Court, stating that it was not unnatural for them to accompany the deceased. The Court emphasized that the eyewitnesses’ accounts were reliable, and the High Court was correct in relying on them. The Court also noted that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly and had drawn adverse inferences without sufficient basis.

The Court held that the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal, emphasizing the importance of the evidence of the injured witness and the consistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The Court noted that the Trial Court had failed to give due weight to the evidence of the injured witness and had made incorrect observations regarding the medical evidence. The Court also emphasized that the High Court had correctly re-appreciated the evidence and had given cogent reasons for finding the accused guilty. The Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the High Court’s decision to convict the accused.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, has the power to reverse an order of acquittal if the Trial Court’s decision is perverse or manifestly illegal. The Court stated that the High Court had correctly exercised its power in this case, as the Trial Court’s reasoning was flawed and the evidence clearly pointed towards the guilt of the accused.

“It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon.”

“Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth.”

“The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.”

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts have the power to reverse acquittals if the Trial Court’s reasoning is perverse or manifestly illegal.
• The evidence of an injured witness is crucial and should not be discarded without valid reasons.
• Medical evidence should be considered in conjunction with ocular evidence, and minor inconsistencies should not invalidate credible testimony.
• In cases of group rivalry, caution is required, but credible eyewitness accounts cannot be ignored.
• The duty of the prosecution and the court to show the alleged weapon of offense to the medical witness is important, but not an absolute requirement if the medical and ocular evidence are consistent.

This judgment reinforces the principles of appellate review in criminal cases and highlights the importance of a thorough and unbiased assessment of evidence. The decision clarifies that while appellate courts should be cautious in overturning acquittals, they must do so when the Trial Court’s reasoning is flawed or when the evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. This judgment will likely be cited in future cases involving appellate reviews of acquittals, particularly in cases involving multiple accused and conflicting evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction by the High Court was upheld.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court can reverse an order of acquittal by a trial court if the trial court’s reasoning is found to be perverse, or if the trial court has failed to correctly appreciate the evidence. This case reinforces the existing principles of appellate review, emphasizing the importance of the evidence of an injured witness and the consistency between the ocular and medical evidence. It also clarifies that while appellate courts should be cautious in overturning acquittals, they must do so when the Trial Court’s reasoning is flawed or when the evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but rather reaffirms the established jurisprudence on appellate review in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict the accused. The Court found that the Trial Court’s acquittal was based on a flawed appreciation of evidence, and the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the injured witness’s testimony and the consistency between the ocular and medical evidence. This case reinforces the principles governing appellate review of acquittals and highlights the need for a thorough and unbiased assessment of evidence in criminal cases.