The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against acquittal, holding that no substantial and compelling reasons existed to disturb the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Leave to appeal against acquittal was not granted; the application was dismissed.
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.
CRLLP N0.103 of 2015
7 16.12.2020. State of Orissa ….. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs. Urmila Nayak ….. Respondents/opp. parties
For the appellant : Addl. Standing Counsel
For the respondents: M/s.Basanta Ku.Das and four others.
This is an application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred as ‘the Code’, for brevity, for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No.143/369 of 2013-2009 arising out of C.T. Case No.822 of 2009 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore corresponding to Singla P.S. Case No.72/2009. The judgment was delivered on 26.11.2014.
AKB
2
“..the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a
3
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness..”
“There is no doubt that the power conferred by clause (a) which deals with an appeal against an order of acquittal is as wide as the power conferred by clause (b) which deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, and so, it is obvious that the High Court’s powers in dealing with criminal appeals are equally wide whether the appeal in question is one against acquittal or against conviction. That is one aspect of the question. The other aspect of the question centers round the approach which the High Court adopts in dealing with appeals against orders of acquittal. In dealing with such appeals, the High Court naturally bears in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of an accused persons and cannot lose sight of the fact that the said presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court and so, the fact that the accused person is entitled for the benefit of a reasonable doubt will always be present in the mind of the High Court when it deals with the merits of the case. As an appellate court the High Court is generally slow in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court, particularly when the said finding is based on an appreciation of oral evidence because the trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence. Thus, though the powers of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal are as wide as those which it has in dealing with
4
an appeal against conviction, in dealing with the former class of appeals, its approach is governed by the overriding consideration flowing from the presumption of innocence….
The test suggested by the expression “substantial and compelling reasons” should not be construed as a formula which has to be rigidly applied in every case, and so, it is not necessary that before reversing a judgment of acquittal, the High Court must necessarily characterize the findings recorded therein as perverse.
The question which the Supreme Court has to ask itself, in appeals against conviction by the High Court in such a case, is whether on the material produced by the prosecution, the High Court was justified in reaching the conclusion that the prosecution case against the appellants had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the contrary view taken by the trial court was erroneous. In answering this question, the Supreme Court would, no doubt, consider the salient and broad features of the evidence in order to appreciate the grievance made by the appellants against the conclusions of the High Court.”
“(1) The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
(2) The accused is presumed innocent until
5
proven guilty.
The accused possessed his presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
(3) Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court’s decision. This is especially true when a witness’ credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.
In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal:
(1) The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when:
(i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;
(ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
(iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”;
(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
(v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the Ballistic
6
expert, etc.
(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
(2) The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.
(3) If two reasonable views can be reached, one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction-the High courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.”
7
rendered by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge. He has enumerated the following circumstances, in addition to the homicidal nature of death of the deceased, to have been relied upon by the prosecution to prove its case;
(i) There was inimical term between the accused Urmila Nayak and the family members of P.W.7 Akhaya Kumar Nayak and as such the accused persons had a motive to kill the deceased Sonu,
(ii) The accused Urmila Nayak had threatened P.W.7 Akhaya Kumar Nayak and his wife P.W.12 Binati Nayak to wife out their entire family,
(iii) At about 4 P.M. of the occurrence day i.e. at about 4 P.M. of 24.4.2009 the accused Urmila Nayak had offered some palm kernel to the deceased Sonu and had asked him to come to her house in the evening hour,
(iv) Again in the evening hour of that day i.e. in the evening hour of 24.4.2009 the deceased Sonu went to the house of one of his friends P.W.10 Rudranarayan Das, called him to go to the house of the accused Urmila Nayak to bring palm kernel further and without waiting for him proceeded to the house of the accused Urmila Nayak and found missing thereafter; and
(v) The conduct of the accused persons after the death of the deceased Sonu.
As far as the second circumstance is concerned, the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge has not given any specific
8
finding, but the nature of the language used by him appears that he had accepted that there was some kind of inimical relationship between the two opposite parties-Urmila Nayak and Ajaya Nayak.
As far as the 3rd circumstance is concerned, the circumstance has been accepted by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge to be established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
As far as the 4th circumstance is concerned, the same has also been accepted by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge to have been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has established that the conduct the opposite parties-accused in not going to see the dead body of the deceased can be considered as incriminating circumstance against them and that the same has been clearly proved by the prosecution.
9
The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was not patently illegal. The judgment is not manifestly unjust and unreasonable and the trial court has not ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or have ignored the material documents available in this case. It may be noted that there is no dying declaration or report of the ballistic expert, in this case. Moreover, the appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. If two reasonable views are possible, one that leads to acquittal and the other to conviction, the appellate court must rule in favour of the accused.
10
application for leave to appeal against acquittal.
Hence, the leave is not granted and the CRLLP is dismissed.
S.K.Mishra,J .
Savitri Ratho,J .
11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to file an appeal against acquittal was warranted under Section 378(4) CrPC.
Whether there were very substantial and compelling reasons to overturn the trial court's acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P.; (2008) 10 SCC 450 · Who else cites this
Sheo Swarup V. King EmperorReferred¶11
Sheo Swarup V. King Emperor; AIR 1934 Privy Council page 230 · Who else cites this
M.G. Agrawal V. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶15
M.G. Agrawal V. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1963 SC 200 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Orissa
Urmila Nayak
S.K.Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
