Supreme Court on Grounds of Appeal in Acquittal Cases

 

INTRODUCTION

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 368, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the circumstances where a High Court would be justified in exercising its powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) in interfering with the acquittal by the Trial Court.

 

For the sake of brevity, the facts of the case are not being discussed. Let us discuss the important observations of the Court in relation to interference with acquittal of an accused.

 

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court discussed that “it is fundamental in criminal jurisprudence that every person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, for criminal accusations can be hurled at anyone without him being a criminal.”

 

Secondly, it was observed by the Court that “this presumption of innocence is doubled when a competent Court analyses the material evidence, examines witnesses and acquits the accused. Keeping this cardinal principle of invaluable rights in mind, the appellate Courts have evolved a self-restraint policy whereunder, when two reasonable and possible views arise, the one favourable to the accused is adopted while respecting the trial Court's proximity to the witnesses and direct interaction with evidence. In such cases, interference is not thrusted unless perversity is detected in the decision-making process.”

 

Thirdly, the Court examined the situations where two different views are possible and it was observed that “it is thus a well crystalized principle that if two views are possible, the High Court ought not to interfere with the trial Court's judgment. However, such a precautionary principle cannot be overstretched to portray that the “contours of appeal” against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC are limited to seeing whether or not the trial Court's view was impossible. It is equally well settled that there is no bar on the High Court's power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal.”

 

Fourthly, the Court cautioned that even in cases where there are contradictions, omissions and chaos in the evidence recorded, there also the court has to make efforts to sift the grain from the chaff and “the Court in their quest to reach the truth ought to make earnest efforts to extract gold out of the heap of black sand. The solemn duty is to dig out the authenticity. It is only when the Court, despite its best efforts, fails to reach a firm conclusion that the benefit of doubt is extended.” The Court further stated that many a times, like in the present case, the Trial Courts become overwhelmed with the contradictions and fail to identify the material admissible evidence against the accused. In such cases, wrong conclusions could be reached.

 

Fifthly, the Court laid down the guidelines when it deals with a judgment of acquittal by observing that “the Appellate Court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable.”

 

Sixthly, it was held by the Court that a finding contrary to the evidence is perverse and ignoring relevant material on record makes the case ripe for interference from the Appellate Court.

 

Seventhly, the Court stated that non-examination of alleged bystanders to the incident is understandable as “it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine every cited or possible witness. So long as the prosecution case can withstand the test of proof beyond doubt, non-examination of all or every witness is immaterial.”

 

And lastly, in the same breath, the Supreme Court opined that “the prosecution has complete liberty to choose its witnesses if it is to prove its case. The court cannot compel the prosecution to examine one witness or the other as its witness. At the most, if a material witness is withheld, the court may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution” and “it is the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence that matters.”

 

Therefore, based upon such reasoning, the Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal of the accused and “has prevented miscarriage of justice by separating grain from the husks leading to the conviction of the appellants.”

 

Those were the observations of the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is often difficult to find out if a case warrants interference or not, more so, when the same involves an acquittal. As the Court rightly pointed out that one is innocent until proven guilty, the burden is indeed on the prosecution to prove its case. However, according to the Court, in such process, the Court cannot dictate its terms to the prosecution to conduct investigation in a particular manner and it is the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence as it thinks fit. There is a reason why so many tiers have been created in our judicial system to test a judicial order. The concept of appeal makes sure that if the Trial Court has erred in deciding a particular issue, the same could be cured as per law by the Appellate Court. The present case is a perfect example of that.