Appellate Court While Dealing With An Appeal Against Acquittal Should Not Only Scrutinize Evidence Before It But Also Satisfy Whether Trial Court's Decision Is Possible & Plausible View: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal is not only expected to scrutinize not only the evidence before it but is also duty-bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view.

The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh made this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing the High Court's order of overturning the conviction of an accused in a case related to NDPS.

To adjudicate on the issue, the bench relied on the judgment in Mohan alias Srinivas alias Seena alias Tailor Seena v. the State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine 1233 wherein it was observed that the Appellate Court in an appeal preferred by State against an order of acquittal is expected to involve itself in deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty-bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view.

In the said judgment, the Supreme Court had said,

"20. Section 378 CrPC enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC speaks of the powers that can be exercised by the Appellate Court. When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate Court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence. Certainly, the court of first instance has its own advantages in delivering its verdict, which is to see the witnesses in person while they depose. The Appellate Court is expected to involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view. When two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the advantage of having seen the witnesses. Article 21 of the Constitution of India also aids the accused after acquittal in a certain way, though not absolute. Suffice it is to state that the Appellate Court shall remind itself of the role required to play, while dealing with a case of an acquittal.

21. Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court's role undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of the evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity nor the nature of offence affects its performance. We have a hierarchy of courts in dealing with cases. An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity."

Thus the bench while upholding the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal in Ramesh v State of Himachal Pradesh said,

"We have carefully considered the approach of the High Court vis-à-vis the judgment of the trial court. As stated, the trial court has done a meticulous job in considering all the materials including the deposition of the witnesses. The High Court, in our considered view, has wrongly overturned the well-merited judgment of the trial court rendered on cogent and concrete reasoning. The reasons behind the conclusion arrived at by the trial court have not been found to be illegal."

The bench further said,

"We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt particularly when the infirmities pointed by the trial court are not found to be either incorrect or untrue. The appeal accordingly stands allowed by setting aside the order of conviction rendered by the High Court leading to the confirmation of the order of acquittal by the trial court. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case."

Factual Background

The police officers had found a stationed car, broken down and upon search had unearthed 2.1 kg of "charas" and 1.5 kg of "opium". The investigation had led to the appellant "Ramesh" who was arrested.

The trial court had examined 9 witnesses and 6 witnesses were put forth by the defense to establish that the vehicle was stationed at a different place, got repaired and thus, the story of the prosecution deserved to be rejected.

After undertaking a laborious exercise, the Trial Court held that the alleged recovery was doubtful as the place in which the vehicle was stationed could not be proved to the satisfaction of the court. While accepting the evidence adduced by the defense, the Trial Court said that the explanation given for non-examination of any independent witnesses coupled with the reasoning aforesaid created a serious doubt in the mind of the court.

In an appeal before the High Court, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was overturned. The High Court found that the discrepancies were natural as they avoided a parroting version through the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court observed that the deposition of the witnesses produced by the defense did not inspire confidence. Without assailing the well-merited reasoning of the trial court on several fronts, the High Court placed its faith in the testimony of the police officers to prove the case of the prosecution and convicted the appellant.

Submission Of Counsels

Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Rishi Malhotra submitted that the High Court had committed a fundamental error by reviewing a decision which constituted more than a possible or a plausible view. It was also contended that the conclusions arrived at by the trial court on the basis of legal reasoning could not be overturned without holding to the contrary and the approach by the High Court was contrary to law particularly when the trial court had the advantage of seeing and listening to the statements made by the witnesses.

To substantiate his contention, counsel relied on the judgement in Basappa v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 154.

The counsel for the State had submitted that there was nothing wrong in the process adopted by the High Court. It was also argued that appreciation by the higher court was permissible not only in law but also in fact and that there was no need to doubt the testimony of the police officers. State's counsel argued that the prosecution witnesses had clearly stated the reason for their inability to get independent witnesses.

Case Title: Ramesh v State of Himachal Pradesh| Criminal Appeal No.218 Of 2017

Citation: 

Coram: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh