RAJVEER
If Trial Court's Acquittal Is A Plausible View, Then High Court Shouldn't Convict Accused By Reappreciating Evidence
RAJVEER SINGH 13 Aug 2024

The Supreme Court observed that if the appellate court, while appreciating the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, finds that two views are plausible, then the view favoring the innocence of an accused must be taken

Setting aside the impugned findings of the High Court which had convicted the accused while reversing the trial court's order of acquittal, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma held that it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence if the view taken by the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is plausible view.

“The 'two-views theory' has been judicially recognized by the Courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence.”, the judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.
Background

In the present case, the trial court has acquitted the accused persons for the charges of committing murder punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

The trial court after the appreciation of evidences came to the finding that the testimonies supplied by the Prosecution Witness No. 3 is of artificial nature and cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. According to the Trial Court, the chain of circumstances created by the testimony of PW-3 is not consistent with the outcome of guilt.

On the acquittal of the accused, an appeal was preferred by the State before the High Court.

The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the finding that PW-3 being injured witness, and there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony.

Reversing the trial court acquittal order, the High Court convicted the accused.

It is against the order of conviction that the accused preferred criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Made by Accused

The accused appellants submitted that the High Court has erred in re-appreciating the entire evidence without finding any fault with the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. They submit that re-appreciation of the entire evidence at the appellate stage is not permissible until and unless a grave error has been identified in the view taken by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that if appreciation of evidence leads to two possible views, then the decision of the Trial Court could not be reversed merely because another view was possible.

Arguments Made by State

It was submitted by the respondent State that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper manner which led to the acquittal of the accused persons. It is further submitted that the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 were incorrectly rejected by the Trial Court despite the fact that one of them was an eye witness of the entire incident and the other one was a victim of the assault. It is further submitted that once a grave error is found in the decision of the Trial Court, the High Court is fully empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidence and reach a different conclusion.

Observation of Court

After hearing the submission made on behalf of the parties and perusing the order of the Trial Court and the High Court, the court observed that the error was committed by the High Court by re-appreciating the entire evidence, as the appreciation of the evidence done by the trial court doesn't suffer from illegality nor the grave error is found in the decision of the Trial Court.

“Notably, all these aspects have been carefully analysed and appreciated by the Trial Court, but the High Court rejected all the doubts by observing that PW-4 was an injured witness and there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony. The High Court omitted to take note of two material aspects – the fact that the statement of PW-4 was recorded after a period of one month from the date of incident and the factum of family relationship between the deceased and PW-4. The former aspect raises a grave suspicion of credibility, whereas the latter raises the suspicion of being an interested witness.”

“where a testimony is duly explained and inspires confidence, the Court is not expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness, however, when the testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting evidence (the wound certificate, for instance), a Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and credibility.”, the court added.

Re-appreciation of Evidence Should be in Entirety and Not Just Partial Re-appreciation

The court noted that although the High Court while exercising the power of an Appellate Court could re-appreciate the evidence, however, the re-appreciation of such evidence shall be in entirety and not just partial appreciation.

“So far as the question of independent appreciation of evidence by the High Court is concerned, be it noted that the High Court was fully empowered to do so, but in doing so, it ought to have appreciated the evidence in a thorough manner. In the present case, the High Court has not done so. Even the aspects discussed by the Trial Court have not been fully addressed and the High Court merely relied on a limited set of facts to arrive at a finding.”

“In an appeal, as much as in a trial, appreciation of evidence essentially requires a holistic view and not a myopic view. Appreciation of evidence requires sifting and weighing of material facts against each other and a conclusion of guilt could be arrived at only when the entire set of facts, lined together, points towards the only conclusion of guilt. Appreciation of partial evidence is no appreciation at all and is bound to lead to absurd results.”, the court added.

Further, the court laid down the three questions that the High Court shall examine while re-appreciating the evidence.

“The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity.”

Based on the aforesaid observations, the court set aside the High Court's order convicting the accused.

Case Details: MALLAPPA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA Criminal Appeal No(s).1162/2011

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
SAARTH A SoOLEGAL Technologies Initiative
Active Members view all
New Members view all
Legal News Headlines
×

C2RM… To Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTH… To Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com