HC Can Interfere In Appeal Against Acquittal If Trial Court's View Is Found To Be 'Perverse': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court last week observed that the High Court should interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Cour if it arrives at a finding that the trial Court's decision was perverse or otherwise unsustainable.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed against the 2017 order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura acquitting the 3 persons under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act.

Referring to the Apex Court's rulings in the case of Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, the Court observed that while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable.

The Court also noted that the appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law.

Further, the Court also referred to the ruling in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225, wherein the Apex Court had observed that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has to first record its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusion arrived by it is wholly untenable which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal.

The facts of the case

Against this backdrop, the High Court analyzed the facts of the case, which involved the murder of Dorilal, who, as per the FIR, was killed by the accused persons (who were allegedly committing theft of electricity cable from the electricity poll).

The High Court, in an appeal moved by the son of the deceased/informant, took into account the acquittal ruling of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, and observed that the alleged eyewitnesses came into the picture only through affidavits after about eight days whereas the first information report was lodged promptly, which was allegedly written in the presence of the eyewitnesses but still their names were not mentioned in the first information report.

Therefore, the Court found that it was rightly observed by the trial court that there was material contradiction regarding their presence and description of the alleged incident that had taken place.

Further, with regard to the affidavits of alleged eyewitnesses, the Court noted that they stated in the cross-examination that they did not execute any such affidavits and further, P.W.-1 had barely signed the affidavit.

Also, two other witnesses clearly stated that they are illiterate and they have put their thumb impression in the affidavit but the correctness of the affidavits was denied by them giving contradictory stand.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the same cannot form the basis of the eyewitness account of the incident, which otherwise, as held by the trial court, could not be proved by the prosecution.

Consequently, holding that it cannot be said that the trial court had failed to take into consideration the admissible evidence or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law on reaching the above finding, the Court summarily dismissed the appeal under Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Case title - Virendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 48

Click Here to read/download the order