GURU DUTT PATHAK VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the provided case, the petitioner was accused of violating Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the defendant harbored ill will towards the deceased. The deceased, who was the village Pradhan for more than two years, was near the Yamuna when four suspects emerged from the bajra field. The defendants were equipped with lathis and pistols. The victim’s skull was pulverized with lathis and spears, causing instantaneous death.  Following this, the son of the deceased lodged a police report against the four suspects. The death of the deceased was attributed to cerebral hemorrhage and trauma caused by multiple injuries, according to the autopsy report. All of the defendants were exonerated by the trial court because some of the witnesses were related and involved in the case, and no independent witnesses had been examined. The trial court determined that the prosecution had failed to establish its case, so an appeal was unnecessary.

The State filed an appeal with the High Court, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the trial court’s verdict of acquittal. The accused was found guilty of the crimes after the High Court granted his appeal and reversed the trial court’s acquittal decision. He was sentenced to life in prison under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defendant, angered and disheartened by the verdict of the High Court, chose to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

• Can the High Court’s decision to reverse a verdict made by a knowledgeable trial court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be deemed reasonable?
• Is the examination of independent witnesses an essential requirement?

RATIONALE

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code defines the Acts of Several Persons in Furtherance of a Common Intention. As per the provision, if a group of individuals commit a criminal act in pursuit of their shared intention, each individual will be held responsible for the act as if they had committed it individually.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code holds significant importance. Homicide is an unlawful act that is subject to legal sanctions under the provisions of this particular statute. As per the provisions outlined in Section 302, an individual who perpetrates the act of homicide shall be subjected to the penalty of capital punishment or life imprisonment, in addition to a monetary fine. The Indian Penal Code stipulates two distinct forms of punishment, namely capital punishment and life imprisonment, one of which must be imposed upon the defendant upon conviction, along with any additional penalties deemed appropriate by the court.

According to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an order of acquittal, whether original or appellate, issued by a Court of Session or any other court apart from the High Court, can be instructed by the state government to the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal in the High Court. The following conditions apply to this subject: The High Court’s permission is a prerequisite for the consideration of an appeal of this kind. In the event of an application for special leave granted by the High Court from a judgment of acquittal, the complainant may submit it to the High Court.

ANALYSIS/CASE LAW:

1. COURTS STANCE:

In the context of the Scope of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Honorable Supreme Court made reference to the case of Umedbhai Jadav Bhai vs. State of Gujarat [1978 1 SSC 228]. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court possesses the power to re-evaluate the entire evidence and accord significance to the decision of the Session Judge if it was arrived at after a comprehensive assessment of the facts, provided that the appeal against the acquittal judgement is duly heard.

The court made reference to the legal case of K. Gopal Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh [1979 1 SCC 355]. The court held that in instances where the trial court neglects to consider significant evidence, it is incumbent upon the High Court to intervene and accord due weight to such evidence.

The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination, determined that the trial court’s acquittal of the defendant was based on improper findings. The Supreme Court analyzed the remarks put forth by the High Court with respect to every aspect and determined that the High Court’s intervention in the decision of the Trial Court and the conviction of the defendant was justified and devoid of any mistake. Reliable and credible eyewitnesses provide tangible evidence.

The court made reference to the legal matter of Surinder Kumar versus the State of Punjab [2020 2 SCC 563]. The ruling in this instance stipulated that the presumption of the accused being wrongly accused cannot be made if an impartial witness was not interviewed.  

JUDGMENT:

According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the decision made by the trial court was deemed irrational and inconsistent with the available evidence. Consequently, the decision made by the High Court to reverse the initial verdict and find the defendant guilty is defensible.

• ANALYSIS:

It is imperative to acknowledge that when evaluating an appeal, the High Court is required to adhere to a more stringent standard of persuasion compared to when it is functioning as the trial court. Notwithstanding the imperative to attain elevated standards, their capacity to scrutinize and apprehend contemporary evidence is restricted, thereby exacerbating the issue. As per the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the High Court is vested with the power to reassess and scrutinize the evidence while deliberating upon an appeal.

In the case of Bir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled that although the appellate court possesses the power to admit additional evidence in suitable circumstances, it should refrain from utilizing its discretion to supplement or compensate for deficiencies or inadequacies in the prosecution’s evidence. In the case of Harijan Megha v. State of Gujarat, it was ruled that the High Court is not authorized to intervene and adopt a different perspective on the evidence presented if the trial court’s stance is backed by evidence and is deemed reasonable. The reversal of an acquittal can only be impacted if the High Court’s assessment of the evidence results in an unequivocally distinct outcome, where no alternative conclusion is feasible.

Demeanor The significance of evidence is widely acknowledged in evaluating the veracity of a witness’s testimony. Nonetheless, due to the infrequency of witness recall, the majority of High Courts are unable to personally evaluate witness testimony. The affirmation of the presumption of innocence following a trial court acquittal has been emphasized by the Supreme Court as a factor that should prompt appellate courts to exercise caution. This is due to the fact that trial courts possess the advantage of firsthand observation of witnesses and their testimony. Consequently, any decision to overturn such a ruling can only be justified by substantial and compelling reasons.

CONCLUSION

The High Court’s bear a substantial burden when adjudicating an appeal against acquittal. The finality of the High Court verdict is exacerbated by the limited circumstances under which an appeal to the Supreme Court is permissible. Specifically, such an appeal is only tenable in cases where the accused has received a sentence of over 10 years imprisonment, has been sentenced to death, or when the High Court has deemed a case suitable for Supreme Court review. Moreover, trial courts have been reprimanded by the High Courts on numerous occasions for their inaccurate evaluation of the evidence. The limited capacity of the high court to scrutinize evidence related to witnesses often leads to prolonged periods of deliberation and potentially ineffective dispensation of justice for the appellants.

written by SOMYA GUPTA intern under legal vidhiya