| Headnote |
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Acquittal under – As per prosecution eight accused persons armed with axes, knives and clubs attacked ‘M’ and assaulted him – PW-4 tried to run away, however, was assaulted with an axe on his head, back and on scrotum – PW-4 sustained injuries, became unconcious and fell on the ground – PW-3 hid himself inside the jali-trees – After assailants left, PW-3 went to M and found that he was dead and PW-4 was unconcious with blood flowing out of his injuries – PW-3 fearing for his life kept on hiding then left during night – On the next day he informed PW-2 (father of deceased) about the incident – Eight accused persons were tried and acquitted by the trial Court – The High Court acquitted all the accused persons except the three appellants – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the case of prosecution substantially rests on the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 read with various documents, especially the reports of medical examination and post mortem – The conduct of PW-3 renders his very presence at the place of incident as doubtful – Despite a heavy assault by multiple accused persons, he did not suffer any injury at all – That too when he was indeed chased by A-3 while attacking PW-4 – It is extremely doubtful that the assailants simply chose to give up on PW-3 and did not pursue him behind the bushes, despite knowing that PW-3 could turn out to be an eye witness of the incident – The story that follows the story of hiding behind the bushes is equally doubtful and leaves one speculating – The timelines, the route taken by PW-3, complete disregard for severely injured PW-4, failure to inform the police post despite access to it etc. are some of the factors that raise a reasonable doubt on the entire story – The chain of circumstances created by the testimony of PW-3 is not consistent with the outcome of guilt – The version of PW-4 is that he was attacked from the back by A3 and thereafter, he fell unconscious – As per his testimony and the testimony of PW-3, PW-4 was attacked by an axe on his head, back and scrotum – The first point of corroboration is to be seen from the circumstances following the assault – The assault on PW-4 took place at around 4 P.M. and he was admittedly unconscious thereafter – He remained as such until he was “self- admitted” in the hospital at around 12:30 P.M. the following day – The second point for corroboration of this version could be taken from the wound certificate issued by PW-8 during the treatment of PW-4 at Government Hospital – The Trial Court relied upon the wound certificate and noted a contradiction between the condition of PW-4 at the time of admission – In the certificate, PW-4 is stated to be “self-admitted” but at the same time, he is stated to be unconscious – The injuries found on PW-4, as per the wound certificate, were simple in nature – PW-8 gave some treatment to PW-4, however the nature of treatment is not indicated – In the ordinary course of natural events, an injury inflicted by an axe, that too in a manner that the injured immediately fell unconscious and remained unconscious for almost 20 days, could not have been a simple injury – The High Court omitted to take note of two material aspects-the fact that the statement of PW-4 was recorded after a period of one month from the date of incident and the factum of family relationship between the deceased and PW-4 – The former aspect raises a grave suspicion of credibility, whereas the latter raises the suspicion of being an interested witness – The High Court went on to reverse the decision by taking its own view on a fresh appreciation of evidence without recording any illegality, error of law or of fact in the decision of the Trial Court – Thus, the High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal, without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or error in the reasoning of the Trial Court. [Paras 29, 30, 33, 34, 39] Criminal Jurisprudence – Criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty – All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice – The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: Held: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) 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; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. [Para 36] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appellate Power – Qualified Power of the High Court: Held: In the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record – However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal – The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence – The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact – If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view – A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion – What is required is an illegality or perversity. [Para 25] Criminal Jurisprudence – Two-views theory – Reiterated. |
