If Trial Court's Acquittal Is A Plausible View, Then High Court Shouldn't Convict Accused By Reappreciating Evidence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that if the appellate court, while appreciating the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, finds that two views are plausible, then the view favoring the innocence of an accused must be takenSetting aside the impugned findings of the High Court which had convicted the accused while reversing the trial court's order of acquittal, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela...
The Supreme Court observed that if the appellate court, while appreciating the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, finds that two views are plausible, then the view favoring the innocence of an accused must be taken
Setting aside the impugned findings of the High Court which had convicted the accused while reversing the trial court's order of acquittal, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence if the view taken by the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is plausible view.
“The 'two-views theory' has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence.”, the judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.
Background
In the present case, the trial court has acquitted the accused persons for the charges of committing murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.
The trial court after the appreciation of evidences came to the finding that the testimonies supplied by the Prosecution Witness No. 3 is of artificial nature and cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. According to the Trial Court, the chain of circumstances created by the testimony of PW-3 is not consistent with the outcome of guilt.
On the acquittal of the accused, an appeal was preferred by the State before the High Court.
The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the finding that PW-3 being injured witness, and there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony.
Reversing the trial court acquittal order, the High Court convicted the accused.
It is against the order of conviction that the accused preferred criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Made by Accused
The accused appellants submitted that the High Court has erred in re-appreciating the entire evidence without finding any fault with the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. They submit that re-appreciation of the entire evidence at the appellate stage is not permissible until and unless a grave error has been identified in the view taken by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that if appreciation of evidence leads to two possible views, then the decision of the Trial Court could not be reversed merely because another view was possible.
Arguments Made by State
It was submitted by the respondent State that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper manner which led to the acquittal of the accused persons. It is further submitted that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 were incorrectly rejected by the Trial Court despite the fact that one of them was an eye witness of the entire incident and the other one was a victim of the assault. It is further submitted that once a grave error is found in the decision of the Trial Court, the High Court is fully empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidence and reach a different conclusion.
Observation of Court
After hearing the submission made on behalf of the parties and perusing the order of the Trial Court and the High Court, the court observed that the error was committed by the High Court by re-appreciating the entire evidence, as the appreciation of the evidence done by the trial court doesn't suffer from illegality nor the grave error is found in the decision of the Trial Court.
“Notably, all these aspects have been carefully analysed and appreciated by the Trial Court, but the High Court rejected all the doubts by observing that PW-4 was an injured witness and there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony. The High Court omitted to take note of two material aspects – the fact that the statement of PW-4 was recorded after a period of one month from the date of incident and the factum of family relationship between the deceased and PW-4. The former aspect raises a grave suspicion of credibility, whereas the latter raises the suspicion of being an interested witness.”
“where a testimony is duly explained and inspires confidence, the Court is not expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness, however, when the testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting evidence (the wound certificate, for instance), a Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and credibility.”, the court added.
Re-appreciation of Evidence Should be in Entirety and Not Just Partial Re-appreciation
The court noted that although the High Court while exercising the power of an Appellate Court could re-appreciate the evidence, however, the re-appreciation of such evidence shall be in entirety and not just partial appreciation.
“So far as the question of independent appreciation of evidence by the High Court is concerned, be it noted that the High Court was fully empowered to do so, but in doing so, it ought to have appreciated the evidence in a thorough manner. In the present case, the High Court has not done so. Even the aspects discussed by the Trial Court have not been fully addressed and the High Court merely relied on a limited set of facts to arrive at a finding.”
“In an appeal, as much as in a trial, appreciation of evidence essentially requires a holistic view and not a myopic view. Appreciation of evidence requires sifting and weighing of material facts against each other and a conclusion of guilt could be arrived at only when the entire set of facts, lined together, points towards the only conclusion of guilt. Appreciation of partial evidence is no appreciation at all and is bound to lead to absurd results.”, the court added.
Further, the court laid down the three questions that the High Court shall examine while re-appreciating the evidence.
“The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity.”
Based on the aforesaid observations, the court set aside the High Court's order convicting the accused.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Basavaprabhu Patil, Sr. Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Nr.Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR
Case Details: MALLAPPA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Criminal Appeal No(s).1162/2011
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 115
Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment
Appeal from acquittal – Principles of deciding – Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive i.e. inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary. Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge. If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed. If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal. If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts. In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. (Para 36)
Reversing the order of acquittal into conviction – The High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal, without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or error in the reasoning of the Trial Court. Setting aside an order of acquittal, which signifies a stronger presumption of innocence, on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. A low standard for turning an acquittal into conviction would be fraught with the danger of failure of justice. In reversing the order of acquittal, what is required is an illegality or perversity in order of trial court. (Para 34 & 39)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Appreciation of Evidence – The High Court fails to appreciate evidence in a thorough manner and merely relied on a limited set of facts to arrive at a finding. In an appeal, as much as in a trial, appreciation of evidence essentially requires a holistic view and not a myopic view. Appreciation of evidence requires sifting and weighing of material facts against each other and a conclusion of guilt could be arrived at only when the entire set of facts, lined together, points towards the only conclusion of guilt. Appreciation of partial evidence is no appreciation at all, and is bound to lead to absurd results. (Para 35)
Power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence – There is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, such power is a qualified power. For re-appreciating evidence, the court must consider, whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence or whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact or whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. (Para 25)
Two-views theory – When the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution and reinforces the presumption of innocence of accused. When two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. It is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by re-appreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. (Para 26)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Presumption of innocence – The presumption is in favour of accused, unless proven guilty – The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal. (Para 24)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Interested witness – Where a testimony is duly explained and inspires confidence, the Court is not expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness. However, when the testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting evidence the Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and credibility. (Para 33)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Circumstantial evidence –In absence of direct evidence, case essentially falls back on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances. The circumstances are far from conclusive and a conclusion of guilt could not be drawn from them. To sustain a conviction, the Court must form the view that the accused “must have” committed the offence, and not “may have”. (Para 37 & 38)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Principles of circumstantial evidence – The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 37)
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; referred.