Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible, says Apex Court while setting aside conviction of father-son duo accused of murder
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [10-04-2024]

Read Order: Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr v. State of Gujarat [SC-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2019]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, April 12, 2024: While observing that there was no reason for the High Court to overturn the order of acquittal when the findings of the Trial Court were possible findings that could be arrived at after re-appreciating the evidence, the Supreme Court has acquitted a father-son duo in a murder case.

The appellants, who are father and son, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The prosecution case was that the deceased was engaged in the business of diamond polishing. At about 9.45 pm on September 17, 1996, when PW-1, brother of the deceased, was sitting in his pan-bidi shop, one Vajsurbhai came to him by motorcycle and told him that the appellants had assaulted the deceased. PW-1 met his uncle Ramabhai on the outskirts of the village, who was taking the deceased to the hospital by a tempo. According to the prosecution case, Karshanbhai (PW-4), Dayabhai, Jivabhai and other villagers were sitting in the tempo. The deceased was taken to a clinic and was immediately shifted to Bhavnagar in a private hospital. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. 

The Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of PW-4 Karshanbhai for various reasons. In the impugned judgment, the High Court noted that though, according to the case of PW-4, he received injuries on September 17,  at the hands of the accused, Dr Jagdishbhai (PW-5) deposed that PW-4 informed him that he suffered injuries on September 18, 1996. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, held that in his police statement, PW-4, had correctly stated that he was injured on  September 18,  1996. 

Therefore, the statement he gave before the Court and the statement given by the doctor were meaningless. The High Court held that although the number of persons who witnessed the incident have not been examined, the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to falsify the prosecution's version. By the impugned judgment, after overturning the acquittal of the appellants, the High Court sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-father & son, approached the Top Court with the present appeal.

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated, “...it is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to reappreciate the evidence. After re-appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that this question has not been adverted to. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal.”

As per the Bench, the High Court had ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused. 

The second error committed by the High Court was that it had gone to the extent of recording a finding that the appellants had failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine the defence witness and failed to establish falsity of the prosecution's version. 

“This concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong. Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused”, the Bench said.

In the absence of the statutory provisions, the Bench opined that the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court’s finding on the burden of proof was held to be completely erroneous. 

It was also noticed that PW-1 did not state that PW-4 was present when he reached the place where he found that the deceased was laid in a tempo, and according to his version, PW-4 came to Bhavnagar. Though PW-4 stated that PW-1 came on a bicycle and came to Dhola with them, the version of PW-1 was that PW-4 joined him at Bhavnagar and this created a doubt about the presence of PW-4 at the time of the incident. Importantly, one Vajsurbhai, who informed PW- 1 about the assault on the deceased, has not been examined as a witness.

Asserting that the incident was of September 17, 1996, the Bench opined that the High Court had completely brushed aside this statement of PW-5 by observing that once the police recorded statements of the Doctor and PW-4, the statements of PW-4 and the Doctor before the Court became meaningless. 

“As is apparent from Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), statements recorded by police under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness”, the Bench said while further noting that the Trial Court gave several reasons for discarding the testimony of PW-4. His prior enmity with the appellants and his failure to report the incident to the police, notwithstanding available opportunities, were also some factors considered by the Trial Court.

After having perused the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, the Bench was of the view that the finding of the Trial Court that the evidence of PW-4 did not inspire confidence was a possible finding which could have been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. There was no reason for the High Court to overturn the order of acquittal when the findings of the Trial Court were possible findings that could be arrived at after reappreciating evidence.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Top Court set aside the conviction of the appellants and cancelled their bail bonds.