urgent answer required

This query is : Resolved

Report Abuse Follow Query Ask a Query

richa

richa (Querist)
Follow

20 November 2009 could any one provide me the case of CST v. Mohanlal or the site from where i can get it, its urgent.

CA Chandra Kishore Bajpai

CA Chandra Kishore Bajpai (Expert)
Follow

20 November 2009 You may visit following website "http://www.indiankanoon.org"

there could not be forund any such case,judgement given below may be that one.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2003

State of Rajasthan ...Appellant Versus

Mohan Lal ...Respondent JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is by the State of Rajasthan questioning the
judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
dismissing the appeal filed in terms of Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The learned Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act) had directed acquittal of the respondent who
faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in
short the `Act'). The trial Court found that the accusations have not been
established. The same was challenged in appeal before the High Court which
dismissed the same.

2. The Stand of the State was that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act
has not been kept in view. It is pointed out that money was recovered from the
almirah of the respondent. It is to be noted that the trial Court acquitted the
respondent only on the ground that the prosecution version was not credible.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment impugned in the
appeal.

4. There were two complainants; one of them was not examined and the other did
not support the prosecution version. The independent witness also did not
support the prosecution. PW-11 the then Superintendent of Police stated in his
statement that on 22.11.1996 the complainant Ram Pal submitted a complaint
Ex.P-21 before him and about this report Motbirs were informed. Then the
complainant admitted the report to be correct 2

before Motbir witnesses. Strangely none of the Motbir witnesses corroborated
this statement of this witness. A witness stated that this is correct to say
that he did not hear any conversation between the complainant and the accused
and he also did not see any transaction. Narpat Singh (PW- 6), Chunni Lal
(PW-7) and Lal Singh (PW-9) did not speak in Court that the Motbir witnesses
searched the sitting room of the accused and in course of search by them
currency notes smeared with powder were recovered from the almirah. In cross
examination by learned public prosecutor, Motbir witness stated that currency
notes smeared with powder were recovered from the almirah. But he had not
stated that the sitting room was searched by him or other Motbir witness. No
evidence was there to show how the currency notes smeared with powder reached
in the almirah. The evidence was to the effect that the amount was demanded by
the accused which was paid but instead of accepting it directly the accused
asked the person concerned to put the currency notes in the almirah. It is the
accepted case of the prosecution that the money was recovered from the open
almirah.

5. In view of rival submissions of the parties, we think it proper to consider
and clarify the legal position first. Chapter XXIX (Sections 372- 394) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 3

"the present Code") deals with appeals. Section 372 expressly
declares that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal
court except as provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in
force. Section 373 provides for filing of appeals in certain cases. Section 374
allows appeals from convictions. Section 375 bars appeals in cases where the
accused pleads guilty. Likewise, no appeal is maintainable in petty cases
(Section 376). Section 377 permits appeals by the State for enhancement of
sentence. Section 378 confers power on the State to present an appeal to the
High Court from an order of acquittal. The said section is material and may be
quoted in extenso:

"378. Appeal in case of acquittal.--(1) Save as otherwise
provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3)
and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of
acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court, or an order of acquittal
passed by the Court of Session in revision. (2) If such an order of acquittal is
passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi
Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make
investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the
Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal,
subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), to the High Court from the order
of acquittal. (3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be
entertained except with the leave of the High Court. 4

(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted
upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the
complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of
acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. (5) No
application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from
an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of
six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every
other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.

(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the
grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no
appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under
sub-section (2).

6. Whereas Sections 379-380 cover special cases of appeals, other sections lay
down procedure to be followed by appellate courts.

7. It may be stated that more or less similar provisions were found in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the old
Code") which came up for consideration before various High Courts,
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as also before this Court. Since in the
present appeal, we have been called upon to decide the ambit and scope of the
power of an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal, we have
confined ourselves to one aspect only i.e. an appeal against an order of
acquittal.

5

8. Bare reading of Section 378 of the present Code (appeal in case of
acquittal) quoted above, makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed
by the legislature on the powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals
against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power
to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on
which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on
such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by
the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal.

9. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not
weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

10. Though the above principles are well established, a different note was
struck in several decisions by various High Courts and even by this Court. It
6

is, therefore, appropriate if we consider some of the leading decisions on the
point.

11. The first important decision was rendered by the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor (1934) 61 IA 398). In Sheo Swarup
the accused were acquitted by the trial court and the local Government directed
the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of
acquittal under Section 417 of the old Code (similar to Section 378 of the
present Code). At the time of hearing of appeal before the High Court, it was
contended on behalf of the accused that in an appeal from an order of
acquittal, it was not open to the appellate court to interfere with the
findings of fact recorded by the trial Judge unless such findings could not
have been reached by him had there not been some perversity or incompetence on
his part. The High Court, however, declined to accept the said view. It held
that no condition was imposed on the High Court in such appeal. It accordingly
reviewed all the evidence in the case and having formed an opinion of its
weight and reliability different from that of the trial Judge, recorded an
order of conviction. A petition was presented to His Majesty in Council for
leave to appeal on the ground that conflicting views had been expressed by the
High Courts in different parts of India upon the 7

question whether in an appeal from an order of acquittal, an appellate court
had the power to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial
Judge. Their Lordships thought it fit to clarify the legal position and
accordingly upon the "humble advice of their Lordships", leave was
granted by His Majesty. The case was, thereafter, argued. The Committee
considered the scheme and interpreting Section 417 of the Code (old Code)
observed that there was no indication in the Code of any limitation or
restriction on the High Court in exercise of powers as an Appellate Tribunal.
The Code also made no distinction as regards powers of the High Court in
dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction.
Though several authorities were cited revealing different views by the High
Courts dealing with an appeal from an order of acquittal, the Committee did not
think it proper to discuss all the cases.

12. Lord Russel summed up the legal position thus: "There is, in their
opinion, no foundation for the view, apparently supported by the judgments of
some courts in India, that the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to
reverse an order of acquittal on a matter of fact, except in cases in which the
lower court has `obstinately blundered', or has `through incompetence, stupidity
or perversity' reached such `distorted conclusions as to produce a positive
miscarriage of justice', or has in some other way so conducted or misconducted
itself as to produce a glaring 8

miscarriage of justice, or has been tricked by the defence so as to
produce a similar result."

13. His Lordship, then proceeded to observe: (IA p.404) "Sections 417,
418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the
conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No
limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated
in the Code."

14. The Committee, however, cautioned appellate courts and stated: (IA p.404)

"But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching
its conclusions upon fact, 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 certainly 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. To
state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the
appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known
and recognised in the administration of justice."

(emphasis supplied)

9

15. In Nur Mohd. v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 151), the Committee reiterated the
above view in Sheo Swarup (Supra) and held that in an appeal against acquittal,
the High Court has full powers to review and to reverse acquittal.

16. So far as this Court is concerned, probably the first decision on the point
was Prandas v. State (AIR 1954 SC 36) (though the case was decided on
14-3-1950, it was reported only in 1954). In that case, the accused was
acquitted by the trial court. The Provincial Government preferred an appeal
which was allowed and the accused was convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 323 IPC. The High Court, for convicting the accused, placed
reliance on certain eyewitnesses.

17. Upholding the decision of the High Court and following the proposition of
law in Sheo Swarup (supra), a six-Judge Bench held as follows:

"6. It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot
support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court
has no power under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, to reverse a judgment
of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate 10

court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce
a miscarriage of justice."

(emphasis supplied)

18. In Surajpal Singh v. State (1952 SCR 193), a two-Judge Bench observed that
it was well established that in an appeal under Section 417 of the (old) Code,
the High Court had full power to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal was founded. But it was equally well settled that the presumption of
innocence of the accused was further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial
court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing
the witnesses and hearing their evidence could be reversed only for very
substantial and compelling reasons.

19. In Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab (1953 SCR 418) the accused was acquitted
by the trial court but was convicted by the High Court in an appeal against
acquittal filed by the State. The aggrieved accused approached this Court. It
was contended by him that there were "no compelling reasons" for
setting aside the order of acquittal and due and proper weight had not been
given by the High Court to the opinion of the trial court as regards the
credibility of witnesses seen and examined. It was also commented that the 11

High Court committed an error of law in observing that "when a strong
`prima facie' case is made out against an accused person it is his duty to
explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and he cannot take
shelter behind the presumption of innocence and cannot state that the law
entitles him to keep his lips sealed".

20. Upholding the contention, this Court said: "We think this criticism
is well founded. After an order of acquittal has been made the presumption of
innocence is further reinforced by that order, and that being so, the trial
court's decision can be reversed not on the ground that the accused had failed
to explain the circumstances appearing against him but only for very substantial
and compelling reasons."

(emphasis supplied)

21. In Atley v. State of U.P. (AIR 1955 SC 807) this Court said: "In our
opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the appellate court in an appeal
under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code came to the conclusion that the
judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that
order.

It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High
Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence
and to come to its own 12

conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule
that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but
strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had
the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been
recorded in its presence.

It is also 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." (emphasis supplied)

22. In Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra (1955) 2 SCR 1285) the accused
was prosecuted under Sections 302 and 447 IPC. He was acquitted by the trial
court but convicted by the High Court. Dealing with the power of the High Court
against an order of acquittal, Bose, J. speaking for the majority (2:1) stated:
(AIR p. 220, para 1) "It is, in our opinion, well settled that it is not
enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must
also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was
wrong."

(emphasis supplied)

13

23. In Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1961) 3 SCR 120, a three- Judge
Bench considered almost all leading decisions on the point and observed that
there was no difficulty in applying the principles laid down by the Privy
Council and accepted by the Supreme Court. The Court, however, noted that
appellate courts found considerable difficulty in understanding the scope of
the words "substantial and compelling reasons" used in certain
decisions. It was observed inter-alia as follows: "This Court obviously
did not and could not add a condition to Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. The words were intended to convey the idea that an appellate court not
only shall bear in mind the principles laid down by the Privy Council but also
must give its clear reasons for coming to the conclusion that the order of
acquittal was wrong." The Court concluded as follows:

"9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (1)
an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup case afford a
correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such
an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this
Court, such as, (i) `substantial and compelling reasons', (ii) `good and
sufficiently cogent reasons', and (iii) `strong reasons' are not intended to
curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal
to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so
14

it should not only consider every matter on record having a
bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in
support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those
facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to
hold that the acquittal was not justified."

24. Again, in M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405, the point
was raised before a Constitution Bench of this Court. Taking note of earlier
decisions, it was observed as follows: "17. In some of the earlier
decisions of this Court, however, in emphasising the importance of adopting a
cautious approach in dealing with appeals against acquittals, it was observed
that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the order of acquittal and
so, `the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the
witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial
and compelling reasons': vide Surajpal Singh v. State (1952 SCR 193). Similarly
in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab (1953 SCR 418), it was observed that the
interference of the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal would
be justified only if there are `very substantial and compelling reasons to do
so'. In some other decisions, it has been stated that an order of acquittal can
be reversed only for `good and sufficiently cogent reasons' or for `strong
reasons'. In appreciating the effect of these observations, it must be
remembered that these observations were not intended to lay down a rigid or
inflexible rule which should govern the decision of the High Court in appeals
against acquittals. They were not intended, and should not be read to have
intended to introduce an additional condition in clause (a) of Section 423(1) of
the Code. All that the said observations are intended to emphasize is that the
approach of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal ought to
be cautious 15

because as Lord Russell observed in Sheo Swarup the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused `is not certainly weakened by the fact that
he has been acquitted at his trial'. Therefore, the test suggested by the
expression `substantial and compelling reasons' should not be construed as a
formula which has to be rigidly applied in every case. That is the effect of the
recent decisions of this Court, for instance, in Sanwat Singh v. State of
Rajasthan and Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab (1962 Supp 1 SCR 104) and so, it
is not necessary that before reversing a judgment of acquittal, the High Court
must necessarily characterise the findings recorded therein as perverse."
(emphasis supplied)

25. Yet in another leading decision in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793) this Court held that in India, there is no
jurisdictional limitation on the powers of appellate court. "In law there
are no fetters on the plenary power of the appellate court to review the whole
evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and, indeed, it has a duty
to scrutinise the probative material de novo, informed, however, by the weighty
thought that the rebuttable innocence attributed to the accused having been
converted into an acquittal the homage our jurisprudence owes to individual
liberty constrains the higher court not to upset the holding without very
convincing reasons and comprehensive consideration." 16

26. Putting emphasis on balance between importance of individual liberty and
evil of acquitting guilty persons, this Court observed as follows: "6.
Even at this stage we may remind ourselves of a necessary social perspective in
criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The
dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense
of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always
good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand especial
emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The
judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or
golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs thro' the web of our
law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and
degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a
thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false
dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical
system of justice will then breakdown and lose credibility with the community.
The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly, as a learned author
(Glanville Williams in Proof of Guilt) has saliently observed, goes much beyond
the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited
acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law,
and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against
indicted `persons' and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty.
Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law,
eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these
reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that `a miscarriage of justice
may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of
the innocent....' In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed
innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice
potent and 17

realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing chance
possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free and chopping the logic
of preponderant probability to punish marginal innocents."

(emphasis supplied)

27. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P (1979) 1 SCC 355, the Court was
considering the power of the High Court against an order of acquittal under
Section 378 of the present Code. After considering the relevant decisions on
the point it was stated as follows:

"9. The principles are now well settled. At one time it was thought that
an order of acquittal could be set aside for `substantial and compelling
reasons' only and courts used to launch on a search to discover those
`substantial and compelling reasons'. However, the `formulae' of `substantial
and compelling reasons', `good and sufficiently cogent reasons' and `strong
reasons' and the search for them were abandoned as a result of the pronouncement
of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1961) 3 SCR

120. In Sanwat Singh case this Court harked back to the principles
enunciated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor and reaffirmed
those principles. After Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan this Court has
consistently recognised the right of the appellate court to review the entire
evidence and to come to its own conclusion bearing in mind the considerations
mentioned by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup case. Occasionally phrases like
`manifestly illegal', `grossly unjust', have been used to describe the orders of
acquittal which warrant interference. But, such expressions have been used more
as flourishes of language, to emphasise the reluctance of the appellate court to
18

interfere with an order of acquittal than to curtail the power of
the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own
conclusion. In some cases (Ramaphupala Reddy v. State of A.P., (AIR 1971 SC 460)
Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 286), it has been said
that to the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh case may be added the further
principle that `if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the
trial court'. This, of course, is not a new principle. It stems out of the
fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled
to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly
balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the
existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be
left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt
arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour
of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the
preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view
will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is,
therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must
be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may
claim, must be reasonable." (emphasis supplied)

28. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225, this Court
said:

"While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate
court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings
of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably
unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative
19

the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the
appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal
cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-
and then only- reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions."

29. In Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 57, referring to
earlier decisions, the Court stated: "7. The paramount consideration of
the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice
which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction
of an innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken a view based upon
conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon
the High Court to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes
of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not.
Probable view taken by the trial court which may not be disturbed in the appeal
is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because
the accused has been acquitted by the trial court, cannot be made a basis to
urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a
finding."

30. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85, the trial court
acquitted the accused but the High Court convicted them. Negativing the
contention of the appellants that the High Court could not have disturbed the
findings of fact of the trial court even if that view was not correct, this
Court observed:

20

"7. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellants that under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure the High Court could not disturb the finding of facts of the trial
court even if it found that the view taken by the trial court was not proper. On
the basis of the pronouncements of this Court, the settled position of law
regarding the powers of the High Court in an appeal against an order of
acquittal is that the Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an
order of acquittal is based and generally it will not interfere with the order
of acquittal because by passing an order of acquittal the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The golden thread which runs
through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the
guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. Such is not a jurisdiction
limitation on the appellate court but judge-made guidelines for circumspection.
The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of
justice is avoided. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal
of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case
where the trial court has taken a view ignoring the admissible evidence, a duty
is cast upon the High Court to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for
the purposes of ascertaining as to whether all or any of the accused has
committed any offence or not".

31. In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (2002) 6 SCC
470, this Court said:

"12. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of
acquittal or conviction as a court of first appeal 21

has full power to review the evidence to reach its own independent
conclusion. However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or
merely because one other view is possible, because with the passing of an order
of acquittal presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced
and strengthened. The High Court would not be justified to interfere with order
of acquittal merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court it would have
proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on the High Court while
reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the reasons given by the
trial court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If the High
Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious
infirmity."

32. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha (2003) 12 SCC 606, this Court
observed:

"21. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence
upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal
shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused
is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the
web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure
that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may
arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an
innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon
the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has
22

been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether
any of the accused committed any offence or not".

33. Again in Kallu v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this Court stated:
"8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate
court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against
conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire
evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will
not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial
court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It
will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view
is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to
get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should
assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court."
(emphasis supplied)

34. From the above decisions, in Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
(2007 (4) SCC 415), the following general principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal were
culled out:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

23

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling
reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring
mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in
the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of
an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption
of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured
his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

24

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of
acquittal recorded by the trial court.

35. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence
which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no
absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof" is
an exercise particular to each case. Referring to the interdependence of
evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another, a learned
author says [see "The Mathematics of Proof II": Glanville Williams,
Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p.340 (342)]:

"The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of
evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur
together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a
criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the
defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally
dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and
doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice.
But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make
confessions, and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts
are not 25

to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm
the other."

36. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract
speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must
be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising
from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague
apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must
grow out of the evidence in the case.

37. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be
expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of
such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable
subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the
quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a
robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge.
While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is
not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities
would make a mockery of administration of 26

criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah,
J. (as His Lordship then was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal (1988 (4) SCC
302).

38. The above position was highlighted in Krishnan and Anr. v. State
represented by Inspector of Police (2003 (7) SCC 56).

39. In the aforesaid view of the matter no interference is called for in this
appeal which is dismissed accordingly as the views expressed by the trial court
and the High Court are reasonable and possible views and there is no perversity
therein.

.

........................................J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi,

April 16, 2009

27

28