When can Supreme Court appreciate evidence? [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court today held that when the findings of the trial court and the High Court are shown to be perverse and there is no proper appreciation of evidence qua the appellant, the Supreme Court would certainly interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court and the trial court..Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence, the Court made it clear..The principle was reaffirmed by a Bench of Justices R Banumathi and S Abdul Nazeer..The judgment was rendered in an appeal against a verdict of the Gujarat High Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant-accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him..Facts.There was a disputed road which was the subject matter of a civil suit filed by complainant-Somabhai Rupabhai (PW-3) against appellant-accused No.1 and accused No.3. The said road was used by the complainant and his family members for going to and fro..On the date of incident i.e. on November 23, 1997 at about 9 PM, when accused persons were ploughing the road, the complainant and his family members intervened and prevented them from carrying out the ploughing activities. The accused then started abusing the complainant and his family members with caste remarks. Due to fear, the complainant and his family members went back to their houses which were near to the place of incident..In the meantime, appellant-accused No.1, Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh and accused No.2, Kalusinh @ Harpalsinh armed with guns, accused No.4, Balbadhra Singh armed with a stick and accused No.3-Gayendra Singh who was driving the tractor came there..Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 fired three gunshots which hit deceased Somiben, wife of Hirabhai (PW-5), Ramanbhai (PW-6) and Nandaben (PW-7). Somiben died on the spot while PWs 6 and 7 got injured. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the place of incident. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant (PW-3), FIR was registered against all the accused.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the trial court examined four eye-witnesses..Upon consideration of the evidence of injured eye-witnesses (PWs 6 and 7), recovery of weapons and other evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant-accused No.1 and accused No.2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each..They were also convicted under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Further, they were convicted under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs.500/- each and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with fine of Rs.500/- each..The High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant-accused No.1 under Section 302 and Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25(c) of the Arms Act. It acquitted the appellant under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court also acquitted accused No.2-Kalusinh from all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt..This led to the appeal in Supreme Court by accused no. 1.Judgment.The Court noted that the occurrence was at 9 PM in the agricultural field of complainant-Somabhai Rupabhai (PW-3), where it was dark. The panchnama of the scene of occurrence showed no indication of the electric light either in the animal shed situated behind the house of the complainant or any electric pole anywhere in the vicinity or any light on the well nearby..Case of the prosecution was that appellant and six other co-accused surrounded the complainant party and there were three gunshots fired. The injured witness in his cross-examination admitted that he had not stated anything about the burning light either in the animal shed or anywhere in the vicinity..In the absence of any evidence as to the light aspect, the possibility of identifying the accused in the darkness of the agricultural field of the complainant, particularly at 09:00 PM becomes doubtful, the Court said..Further, there was no evidence as to whether there was moonlight on the date of the incident. The complainant has also not stated that he had identified the appellant or other co-accused with the help of moonlight. In the absence of evidence as to the availability of sufficient light, the identification of the accused and the overt act attributed to the appellant becomes doubtful, the Court held..In the complaint filed by complainant-Somabhai Rupabhai (PW-3), it had been stated that appellant/accused No.1- Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh and accused No.2-Kalusinh fired three gunshots from their guns..However, in the statement before the court, PW-3 stated that “Kalu Sinh fired three shots which injured Nandaben and Ramanbhai”. As per the case of complainant, as stated in the court, three gunshots were fired and all three were fired by accused No.2-Kalusinh..The Court, therefore, held that there were contradictions in the case of the prosecution as to who fired those gunshots and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant..Importantly, the Court also adverted to the post mortem report of Dr. Rohit Kumar (PW-1) who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Somiben..The doctor opined that cause of death was due to rapturing of trachea, oesophagus and difficulty in breathing. In post-mortem certificate, the doctor had not stated that the injury was caused either by bullet or by pellets. The doctor had also admitted that he did not see the recovered articles i.e. the recovered rifle and the double barrel gun. In the absence of definite evidence as to which of the firearm caused the fatal injury, the same cannot be attributed to the appellant from whom rifle was recovered, the Court ruled..The Court then went on to note the law relating to interference by the Supreme Court with the findings of fact recorded by Court below..While stating that the Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Court also made it clear that if the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence..When the findings of the trial court and the High Court are shown to be perverse and there is no proper appreciation of evidence qua the appellant, the Supreme Court would certainly interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court and the trial court, the Court held..In the instant case, the Court concluded that the High Court has not appreciated the oral evidence, other evidence and the points raised by the appellant-accused No.1..Hence, it set aside the judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant-accused No.1 and ordered that he be released..[Read Judgment].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.