The Supreme Court today held that High Court cannot reverse a judgment of acquittal merely because another view is possible..A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and R Subhash Reddy held that 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 decision came in an appeal against a judgment of the Patna High Court in a murder case. The High Court had set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)..The trial court had examined the oral testimonies of PWs – 3, 4 and 6 thoroughly and formed an opinion that it was not safe to rely on their statements. It had also held that the evidence relating to the identification of the accused in the available light was not convincing. There was a reference to the evidence regarding the lantern in the veranda which was behind the place where the mob was standing and the improbability of their being identified in the light emitted by the lantern. The evidence of PW-6 that he had flashed a torchlight for identifying the accused persons was disbelieved as no torch was seized by the police. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court had opined that the eyewitnesses could not have identified the accused..The trial court further found that there was a delay in lodging the FIR which provided an opportunity to the informant and other PWs to implicate their enemies. Thus, the false implication could not be ruled out, it held..The High Court had appreciated the evidence and found fault with the judgment of the trial court. It felt that apart from minor inconsistencies, the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and there was sufficient light to identify the accused. The accused shared a common intention of killing the deceased, according to the High Court..The delay in registering the FIR was found to be not fatal to the case of the Prosecution. The evidence of interested witnesses was also held to be reliable by the High Court. The minor errors in recording the time in the police station etc. did not prejudice the prosecution’s case, the High Court held..By differing with the view taken by the trial court on the above points, the High Court found that the judgment of the trial court is perverse and that there is only one view possible which leads to the guilt of the accused. On the aforesaid findings, the High Court convicted the Appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment..The same came to be challenged in Supreme Court..The Supreme Court proceeded to consider the powers of the High Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal. It placed reliance on the judgments in Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor, Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State, Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh..It then held that while re-appreciation of evidence is “undoubtedly permissible”, interference with an order of acquittal is not permissible on the ground that a different view is possible..“Interference with the judgment of the trial court in this case by the High Court is on a re-appreciation of evidence which is undoubtedly permissible. Though the High Court was aware of the well-settled principles of law in matters relating to appeals against acquittals, it failed to apply the same in their proper perspective. 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.”.In the instant case, the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal mainly pertained to the delay in lodging the FIR, untrustworthy eyewitnesses, improbability of identification of the accused, non-examination of independent witnesses, previous enmity between the accused and the witnesses, non-production of important prosecution witnesses and improper investigation of the case..The Supreme Court held that on a thorough examination of the entire evidence on record and the judgment of the trial court, it was of the view that the judgment of acquittal by the trial court was justified. The High Court should not have interfered with the same merely because another view was possible..“The High Court could not have reversed a judgment of acquittal merely because another view is possible.”.Thus, it allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court today held that High Court cannot reverse a judgment of acquittal merely because another view is possible..A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and R Subhash Reddy held that 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 decision came in an appeal against a judgment of the Patna High Court in a murder case. The High Court had set aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)..The trial court had examined the oral testimonies of PWs – 3, 4 and 6 thoroughly and formed an opinion that it was not safe to rely on their statements. It had also held that the evidence relating to the identification of the accused in the available light was not convincing. There was a reference to the evidence regarding the lantern in the veranda which was behind the place where the mob was standing and the improbability of their being identified in the light emitted by the lantern. The evidence of PW-6 that he had flashed a torchlight for identifying the accused persons was disbelieved as no torch was seized by the police. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court had opined that the eyewitnesses could not have identified the accused..The trial court further found that there was a delay in lodging the FIR which provided an opportunity to the informant and other PWs to implicate their enemies. Thus, the false implication could not be ruled out, it held..The High Court had appreciated the evidence and found fault with the judgment of the trial court. It felt that apart from minor inconsistencies, the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and there was sufficient light to identify the accused. The accused shared a common intention of killing the deceased, according to the High Court..The delay in registering the FIR was found to be not fatal to the case of the Prosecution. The evidence of interested witnesses was also held to be reliable by the High Court. The minor errors in recording the time in the police station etc. did not prejudice the prosecution’s case, the High Court held..By differing with the view taken by the trial court on the above points, the High Court found that the judgment of the trial court is perverse and that there is only one view possible which leads to the guilt of the accused. On the aforesaid findings, the High Court convicted the Appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment..The same came to be challenged in Supreme Court..The Supreme Court proceeded to consider the powers of the High Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal. It placed reliance on the judgments in Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor, Surajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State, Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh..It then held that while re-appreciation of evidence is “undoubtedly permissible”, interference with an order of acquittal is not permissible on the ground that a different view is possible..“Interference with the judgment of the trial court in this case by the High Court is on a re-appreciation of evidence which is undoubtedly permissible. Though the High Court was aware of the well-settled principles of law in matters relating to appeals against acquittals, it failed to apply the same in their proper perspective. 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.”.In the instant case, the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal mainly pertained to the delay in lodging the FIR, untrustworthy eyewitnesses, improbability of identification of the accused, non-examination of independent witnesses, previous enmity between the accused and the witnesses, non-production of important prosecution witnesses and improper investigation of the case..The Supreme Court held that on a thorough examination of the entire evidence on record and the judgment of the trial court, it was of the view that the judgment of acquittal by the trial court was justified. The High Court should not have interfered with the same merely because another view was possible..“The High Court could not have reversed a judgment of acquittal merely because another view is possible.”.Thus, it allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused..Read the judgment below.
