TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was given in marriage to the accused No. 1 about 1 1/2 years prior to her death and during their marriage, the accused No. 1 was given 11 tolas of gold and a cash of ₹ 10,000/- alongwith other utensils. In spite of all this, the accused were ill-treating and harassing the deceased Ratnavva coercing her to bring more dowry and accordingly a cheque of ₹ 10,000/- was given to the accused No. 1 by the mother of the deceased. But in spite of that the accused did not stop the ill-treatment, and harassment to the deceased Ratnavva. On account of constant harassment and ill treatment to the deceased, they made the life of the deceased a miserable one which abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The accused No. 1 is the husband of the deceased, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents in law, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters in law and the accused N0.6 is the brother in law of the deceased. On the basis of information lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof chargesheet was filed. As accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined at the trial PWs.1 to 18 and got marked in eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ject 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) 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12. 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 is, therefore, appropriate if we consider some of the leading decisions on the point. 13. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: (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) 17. 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. 18. So far as this Court is concerned, probably the first decision on the point was Prandas v. State IR1954SC36 (tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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) 23. In Atley v. State of U.P. 1955CriLJ1653 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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. 26. Again, in M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra [1963]2SCR405 , 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 acquit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnocence 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." 28. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istently 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 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. 1971CriLJ422 Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra 1974CriLJ337 ), 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 reasonab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such a finding. 32. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. 2002CriLJ2024 , 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: 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. 35. Again in Kallu v. State of M.P. 2006CriLJ799 , 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f" 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 to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other. 38. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- and this witness was unable to pay the same. So far the cheque is concerned, the cheque is marked at Ex. P-4, which is a Xerox copy and the Manager of the Bank is examined in support of the case as PW-12. The witness PW-12 deposed that the cheque has been encashed on 24.4.1989 at Syndicate Bank, Mundgor. The accused persons also admitted of having taken the cheque for ₹ 10,000/- but their defence is that accused No. 1 was plying a truck and the truck met with accident which required heavy repairs and so PW-2 has given a cheque for repairs of said truck and not as dowry. To show that A-1 was owning a truck for which he has produced the Xerox of R.C. Book which shows the name of A-1 as per the owner of the truck bearing No. MYE 5577. To show that the said truck met with an accident accused produced the copy of extract of Register No. III Criminal from the Court of J.M.F.C. Khanapur which shows that the truck met with accident on 26.12.1988 and as per the date of registration and F. I. R. and Register, the case was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, on the basis of which, the accused pleaded guilty for the said offences and the accused was convicted and sentenced....