Can Reappreciate Evidence In Appeal Against Acquittal But Strong Circumstances Needed To Reverse Order: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for reappreciating the evidence and taking a different view; but there must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal.

"In the appeal against order of acquittal, the paramount consideration of the appellate court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.ere must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal," the Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Mohd. Aslam observed.

These observations were made while ALLOWING government appeal against a judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in 1985 by which 3 accused-respondents were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. One of the respondents died during the appeal.

Court's observations 

The Court noted that the witnesses in the case had consistently deposed about the overt acts of the accused that all of them had opened fire on the deceased. Regarding the arguement of respondents/accused that the evidence of the witnesses could not be relied upon as they are interested/related witness, the Court noted that the relationship of the witnesses PW1, PW3 & PW4 2 with the deceased cannot be the reason for doubting their testimony.

In this regard, the Court observed thus:

"While appreciating the evidence of witness, approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and consistent with the prosecution case or to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the case. Their evidence cannot be doubted merely because they are related witness. All that is required is that their evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution."

Further, the Court opined that the evidence of PW1 Chandra Bhushan, PW3 Arimardan and PW4 Smt. Asha Devi were consistent and credit worthy and the same was corroborated by medical evidence.

The Court also noted that in the case, five gunshot injuries were found on the body of the deceased and 65 pellets were taken out from the body of the deceased and 04 pellets were also found on the right buttock of one bullock.

The Court also observed that the pellets indicated that accused were armed with 12 bore gun and that the deposition made by the doctor that the deceased might have died on the spot on account of that injury or have survived for about 10-15 minutes, was consistent with the testimony of witnesses PW1, PW3 37 and PW4.

Significantly, the Court noted that the postmortem report and injury report of bullock had corroborated the manner in which occurrence has taken place as stated by the prosecution witnesses.

"The statements of the witnesses PW1 Chandra Bhushan, PW3 Arimardan and PW4 Smt. Asha Devi get assurance from the postmortem report and injury report of the bullock," the Court stressed as it found glaring mistake in appreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment of the trial court which resulted into miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, noting that the Trial Court had wrongly discarded the testimony of eye-witnesses PW1, PW3 an PW4 on flingy ground by recording perverse finding, the Court said that the judgment of acquittal was liable to be interfered.

"It is fairly well-settled that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, the appellate court would be slow to disturb the findings of the trial court which had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses. In an appeal against the order of acquittal, there is no embargo for reappreciating the evidence and to take a different view; but there must be strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. In the appeal against order of acquittal, the paramount consideration of the appellate court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice," the Court remarked as it ALLOWED the state appeal against acquittal of the accused.

The remaining accused-respondent no. 2 Ram Swaroop son of Ram Kumar and accused-respondent no.3 Deoraj son of Ram Kumar WERE HELD GUILTY of committing offences punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case title - State of U.P. v. Laxmi And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2995 of 1985]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 321

Click Here To Read/Download Order