The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent in a rape case. The court held that the trial court's finding was not perverse and there were no substantial and compelling reasons to interfere, thus confirming the acquittal.
Appeal dismissed; record sent back to the Court below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2005 of 1993
Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Nihal Singh Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A Counsel for Respondent :- J.S.Tomar,Anita Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
1. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
[3] Various expressions, such as,"substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
[4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
"10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition.
"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while hoosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573]"
"That appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence."
"The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convincing the accused person."
"10. It is by now well settled that the Appellate Court hearing the appeal filed against the judgment and order of acquittal will not overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the Appellate Court does not find substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. If the Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if the entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of the ballistic expert etc. the same may be construed as substantial and compelling reasons and the first appellate court may interfere in the order of acquittl. However, if the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Court generally will not interfere with the order of acquittal particularly in the absence of the aforementioned factors.
.........................It is relevant to note the observations of this Court in the case of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which reads thus:
"21.There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a
case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not."
Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Faridul
Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against acquittal should be allowed despite the Supreme Court's guidelines on reappreciating evidence in acquittal cases.
Whether the trial court's record shows substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the acquittal of the respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala & Anr.Referred¶10
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 39 · Who else cites this
Chandappa vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶12
Chandappa vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr.Referred¶19
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors.Referred¶21
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 · Who else cites this
Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s vs. State of MPReferred¶21
Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s vs. State of MP, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589 · Who else cites this
Luna Ram vs. BhuPat Singh and Ors.Referred¶22
Luna Ram vs. BhuPat Singh and Ors., reported in (2009) SCC 749 · Who else cites this
Mookkiah and Anr. vs. StateReferred¶25
Mookkiah and Anr. vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 321 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka vs. HemareddyReferred¶27
State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417 · Who else cites this
Shivasaranappa & Ors. vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶29
Shivasaranappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7) SC 66 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal VermaReferred¶31
State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
Jayaswamy vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶33
Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 7 SCC 219 · Who else cites this
Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors.Referred¶35
Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606 · Who else cites this
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of GujaratReferred¶38
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750
Samsul Haque v. State of AssamReferred¶38
Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019) 18 SCC 161 · Who else cites this
State of U.P.
Nihal Singh
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
