If Trial Court's Acquittal Is A Plausible View, Then High Court Shouldn't Convict Accused By Reappreciating Evidence: Supreme Court

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 takenSetting 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.BackgroundIn 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 AccusedThe 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 StateIt 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 CourtAfter 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...

If Trial Court's Acquittal Is A Plausible View, Then High Court Shouldn't Convict Accused By Reappreciating Evidence: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

If Trial Court's Acquittal Is A Plausible View, Then High Court Shouldn't Convict Accused By Reappreciating Evidence: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers