2024 (2) TMI 1391 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court restores acquittal in Section 302 IPC murder case, emphasizes higher threshold for reversing trial acquittals

Mallappa & Ors. Versus State of Karnataka

The SC set aside the HC's conviction order and restored the Trial Court's acquittal in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The SC held that the HC erred ... Commission of murder - challenge to order of conviction of the High Court and praying for a declaration of innocence - reason to disbelieve the evidence - whether the High Court was correct in reversing the order of acquittal of the Trial Court and thereby convicting the accused persons under Section 302 IPC? - HELD THAT:- It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal. The explanation as to how PW-3 spent the entire intervening night of 28- 29.06.1997 is missing from the chain of circumstances. The statement that he was simply sitting at the bus stand for the entire night, while Marthandappa was dead and PW-4 was severely injured and unconscious, fails to inspire confidence. More so, when the entire reason for hiding behind the bushes was the fear of life. Despite such fear, PW-3 did not choose to inform the police out-post, on the way from Devpura to Aidbhavi, and rather, he kept on sitting at the Devpura bus stop. He also admitted that his relatives were residing around 4 km from the place of incident at Nagara. The circumstances in this case are far from conclusive and a conclusion of guilt could not be drawn from them. To sustain a conviction, the Court must form the view that the accused “must have” committed the offence, and not “may have”. As noted in Sharad Birdichand Sarda [1984 (7) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT], the distinction between “may have” and “must have” is a legal distinction and not merely a grammatical one. The High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal, without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or error in the reasoning of the Trial Court. Even on a fresh appreciation of evidence, we find ourselves unable to agree with the findings of the High Court. Accordingly, the impugned order and judgment are set aside - Appeal disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Credibility of eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4).2. Legality of the High Court's re-appreciation of evidence.3. Applicability of principles of circumstantial evidence.Summary:Issue 1: Credibility of Eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4)The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence of eyewitness PW-3 not worthy of credit and his conduct after the alleged murder artificial. The High Court, however, re-appreciated the evidence and found the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 credible, leading to the conviction of the appellants. The Supreme Court noted that PW-3's conduct was dubious as he did not inform anyone about the incident for 18 hours, did not seek medical help for PW-4, and his presence at the scene was doubtful. PW-4's testimony was also found inconsistent with the medical evidence, raising doubts about his credibility.Issue 2: Legality of the High Court's Re-appreciation of EvidenceThe Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has the power to re-appreciate evidence, it must do so thoroughly and address all reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal. The High Court failed to demonstrate any illegality, error of law, or fact in the Trial Court's decision. The Supreme Court reiterated that if two views are possible, the one in favor of the accused should be followed, and the High Court's reversal of acquittal was not justified as it was based merely on a difference of opinion without addressing the detailed reasoning of the Trial Court.Issue 3: Applicability of Principles of Circumstantial EvidenceThe Supreme Court noted that in the absence of credible direct evidence, the case falls back on circumstantial evidence, which must form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to establish this chain conclusively. The contradictions between oral testimonies and medical reports, failure to seize essential materials, and discrepancies in the timeline further weakened the prosecution's case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without finding any illegality or error in the Trial Court's reasoning. The Trial Court's view was legally permissible, and the High Court's decision was not justified. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal, and directed the release of the appellants.