| CITATION | Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2015 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 6th May 2021 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Guru Dutt Pathak |
| RESPONDENT | The State of Uttar Pradesh |
| BENCH | Justice M.R. Shah, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud |
INTRODUCTION
The accused was dissatisfied with the order passed by the High Court, which allowed the State’s appeal and reversed the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, acquitting the accused for the offenses punishable under Section 302[1] and Section 34[2] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The main issue in this case was whether given the facts and circumstances, does High Court have the power to overturn the trial court’s order of acquittal. The Supreme Court after analysing all the grounds and precedents, laid down his observations.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The deceased was the village’s Pradhan, and the accused held grudges against him. The deceased was going to attend the call of nature at the Yamuna River when all four accused, Murlidhar Pathak, Guru Dutt Pathak, Dharmraj Pathak, and Ramraj Pathak, appeared from the bajra field.
- All the accused were armed with weapons. They attacked the dead, using lathi and crushed his head. upon hearing the cry of the deceased, Satrughan Pathak and his brother Ramsukh Pathak, Lalmani Pathak and Shiv Shankar arrived at the spot and rushed towards the deceased, after which the accused fired a shot and fled with their weapon. The deceased died on the spot.
- The son of the deceased filed an FIR under 302 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. During the arrest, one of the accused ran away from the police due to which he suffered some injuries.
- From the post-mortem report, it was evident that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries suffered.
- After examining eight witnesses the court of session acquitted the accused mainly on the grounds that all the eyewitnesses were related to the deceased and there was no independent eyewitness had been examined, the place of incident was not proved by the prosecution and there was no explanation given by the prosecution for the injuries suffered by the accused.
- Feeling dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the State filed an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal.
- During the appeal, out of four, three accused died so the appeal proceeded further against the fourth accused (Guru Dutt Pathak). The High Court allowed the plea and set aside the order of the trial court after examining all the evidence, convicting the accused, and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
- Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the High Court, the accused filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Does section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code[3] grant the High Court the authority to overturn an acquittal order passed by the competent trial court?
- Whether the motive of the accused is established?
- Whether the examination of an independent witness is necessary requirement?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
- It was argued that by overturning the learned trial court’s verdict and thereby convicting the accused, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.
- It was contented that all eight eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution were related witnesses and no independent witness was examined.
- It was argued that the motive of the accused for killing the deceased has still not been proved.
- The learned advocate contended that in the postmortem report, there was no injury found due to the gunshot.
- It was argued that the injury sustained by one of the accused has not been explained by the prosecution.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- Respondent argued that the High Court had sufficient cause to reconsider its findings after reviewing all the available evidence, as it was the first appellate court to review the learned trial court’s judgment and order of acquittal. The High Court relied on the judgment of the court in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs State of Gujarat.
- It is argued that through the challenged judgment, the High Court thoroughly examined the grounds upon which the trial court had acquitted the accused. The High Court concluded that the grounds for the accused’s acquittal were not valid under the law, and directly contradicted the evidence on record.
- Respondent contended that the prosecution has established and proved the actual location of the incident, as well as explained the injuries sustained by one of the accused. It was even submitted in the statement and the accused has stated that enmity between the accused and the deceased.
- It was contended that as per the statement of eyewitnesses, a gunshot was heard, but it was in midair, and the weapon did not cause any injury.
JUDGMENT
Supreme Court held that section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes no restriction on the appellate court on exercising its power to review evidence before reaching its conclusion both on factual and legal issues when the order of the trial court was perverse. The Court examined all the grounds why the trial court acquitted the accused and determined that the trial court’s findings were incorrect. After taking into consideration the High Court’s observations, the court concluded that the High Court acted correctly in overturning the trial court’s decision and the accused’s conviction.
The Supreme Court further stated that the High Court had correctly observed that the absence of motive is insignificant in cases involving reliable eyewitnesses and direct evidence.
mere non-examination of an independent witness would not be fatal to the case of prosecution. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no need to interfere with the impugned High Court judgment reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused. The plea was dismissed. The accused had to surrender and serve their sentence.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court referred to the following precedent:
In the case of Babu vs State of Kerala[4], the court observed that the appellate court has the right to examine whether the trial court made an error in making a factual determination by excluding evidence that was not permissible or by accepting evidence that was entered into the record in violation of the law.
In Chandrappa vs State of Karnataka[5], the court held that “An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.”[6]
The Supreme Court referred to the case of Umedbhai Jadav Bhai vs. the State of Gujarat[7]. In this case, the court ruled that if the appeal against the acquittal judgment is properly heard, the High Court could reconsider the evidence and give the session judge’s decision more weight if it was made after carefully reviewing the facts.
In the case of K. Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[8], it was held that if the trial court fails to consider important evidence, the High Court must intervene.
It was held in the Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab[9] case that even if an independent witness was not examined, it was not possible to conclude that the accused was wrongfully accused
CONCLUSION
The High Court, being the first appellate court, has the authority to re-examine evidence when the order of acquittal is passed by the lower court. But the High Court should keep in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused before overturning an acquittal order passed by the trial court. Following a proper adjudication by the trial Court, the law assumes a double presumption in favor of the accused. The Supreme Court played a crucial role in ensuring that the judgment was fair, and justice was served. The judgment is a detailed analysis that provided clarity and interpretation about the authority that the High Court has under section 378 of the criminal procedure code.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123179149
https://updates.manupatra.com/roundup/contentsummary.aspx?iid=32238
[1] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 302, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 34, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[3] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, § 378, No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[4] Babu v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2197.
[5] Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1124.
[6] INDIAN KANOON, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123179149/ (last visited Jul. 7, 2024)
[7] Umedbhai Jadav Bhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 228.
[8] K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 1 S.C.C. 355.
[9] Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 217.
Written by Janvi Shukla an intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments