Unless Reasoning Of Trial Court Is Perverse, Judgment Of Acquittal Cannot Be Upset: Gujarat High Court
While dealing with the judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, the Gujarat High Court has held.A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt added, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be...
While dealing with the judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, the Gujarat High Court has held.
A Bench comprising Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt added, unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. Making this observation, it dismissed an appeal seeking to quash the order of Sessions Court, acquitting the accused from charge of Murder.
Background
The Complainant ('Appellant') had registered a complaint with the concerned police station claiming that due to a dispute involving issues connected with a temple, the accused persons delivered a fatal blow on the cousin of the Appellant and also beat the Appellant. Pursuant to this incident, an FIR and chargesheet were filed under Sections 302 (Murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
After examining the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced by the Prosecution and noting that the accused persons denied any involvement in the incident, the Judge acquitted the accused from charges under Sections 302, 323 and 504 of IPC but convicted them for offence under Sections 447 (criminal trespass) and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) of IPC.
Dissatisfied with the judgement and the order of acquittal, the aggrieved Complainant approached the High Court with an appeal under Section 372 of CrPC.
Judgement
The Bench noted the Appellant's averment that the Trial Court had not appreciated the role of the accused persons inasmuch as they were present at the time of the incident as per the deposition of the Prosecution Witness. Further, per the Appellant, this was a case of a pre-planned fight with the Appellant where the accused persons had delivered fatal blows on the deceased and beaten the Appellant.
However, the Bench opined that this Prosecution Witness while admitting that the accused persons were armed with wooden stick, did not attribute any role to the accused persons. Even the wife of the deceased person admitted that the accused had a quarrel with the Appellant and the deceased, but she attributed no role to the accused despite their presence during the incident.
This inconsistency in the statements of both eyewitnesses led the Trial Court to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The High Court pointed out that the deceased while giving the medical history to the doctor did not attribute his blows to the accused persons though they resided nearby and were also related. In view of this evidence, the Trial Court had acquitted the accused and the same was endorsed by the High Court.
After re-examining the evidence, the High Court offered its views on the reversal of acquittal. The Court quoted the Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs State of Gujarat [(1996) 9 SCC 225] judgement:
"The appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable."
In Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana [AIR 1995 SC 280], as well, the Supreme Court had observed:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness."
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the scope of appeal under Section 372 of CrPC, the High Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Odhabhai S/O. Dahyabhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 22
Case No.: R/CR.A/267/2022