Section 378 Cr.PC - In an appeal against judgment of acquittal, the High Court is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record
Being the first appellate court, the High Court is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court, the Supreme Court said while referring to some previous decisions.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court lamented on the manner in which the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench dealt with an appeal case under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code stating that the Court ought to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record in detail especially when dealing in criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C
The High Court had reportedly passed an impugned judgment and order of dismissal appeal in just one page/paragraph observing that " I have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court carefully" without further elaborating re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record".
According to SC, the decision of the High Court was totally erroneous which had ignored the settled legal position. Being the first appellate court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court, the Supreme Court said while referring to some previous decisions.
In Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC 228, it was observed and held that once the appeal is entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after a proper appreciation of evidence. Against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court the High Court would be justified on re-appreciation of the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion that acquittal is perverse and manifestly erroneous.
The Court also referred to the case of Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 116 where the court reiterated with the numbers of previous decision regarding the method to deal, decide and dispose of the criminal appeal against an acquittal by the High Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C.
"In Babu vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, the Court reiterated with the previous decisions that laid down the guidelines to followed to interfere with the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate 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. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of a fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and or had taken into consideration admissible evidence brought on record contrary to law. [Balak Ram vs. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Ram Singh vs. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445]"
In Sheo Swarup vs. King Emperor 1934 SCC online PC 42, the Privy Council observed as
"..... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption of certainty not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. [ Tulsiram Kanu vs. State AIR 1957 SC 216, Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216, State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755] "
In the decision of the case Vijay Mohan Singh vs. State of Karnataka (2019) 5 SCC 436, the Supreme Court again considered the scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal by referring to catena of previous decisions. In Atley vs. State of U.P, AIR 1955 SC 807, the Court observed and held that "it is well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal. If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated.
Therefore applying the above law laid down, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the impugned judgment to be unsustainable that deserved to be quashed and set aside and the same to be remanded back to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits at the earliest.
The accused persons were accused by the victim of the offence under Section 354, 504, 506, 452, 323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court convicted them of 452, 323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but acquitted under Section 354, 504, 506 of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The victim/appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court against the impugned judgment of acquittal but the Court by one page/paragraph dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the the trial court. For that reason, feeling aggrieved, the victim/appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Coram: Justice M.R Shah and Justice B.V Nagarathna
Case: Geeta Devi versus State of U.P & Ors. (Criminal Appeal no. 78 of 2022)
DOJ: 18.01.2022
0 Comments