Can’t Interfere With Finding of Acquittal Unless View Taken by High Court Is Totally Perverse or Impossible: Supreme Court

The State of Uttarakhand approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court setting aside the order convicting the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran affirmed, “It is trite law that in a criminal case, if there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused person.”

Additional Advocate General Kaushalpati Gautam represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate S Janani represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident, the first witness (Ganeshi Lal) along with the second witness (Nirmala Verma), who is his daughter and the fourth witness i.e. his wife, were present in the courtyard. The first witness heard a cry coming from the courtyard of the victim and he saw the victim being assaulted by the respondent-accused by a sickle. On seeing the first witness, the accused ran away. Initially, the victim was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries.

After the complaint was lodged and the investigation commenced, the Trial Court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The Respondent’s appeal was allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved thereby, the State filed the appeal before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Expounding on the law relating to interference by the Apex Court in a finding of acquittal, the Bench said, “Unless the view taken by the High Court is found to be totally perverse or impossible, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. Equally, if two views are possible and one of the views is taken by the High Court merely because the other view appears to be a possible view, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of acquittal.”

Noting that all the three alleged witnesses are rustic villagers, the Bench held that their testimonies will have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

According to the second witness, who is the daughter of the first witness, she was the one who reached the spot first, and according to the wife of the first witness, it was she who had reached the spot first thereafter followed by her daughter. After some time, the first witness (Ganeshi Lal) arrived at the scene along with other neighbours. According to the first witness, it was only he who had witnessed the incident, whereas according to other witnesses, the accused had already left the place by the time the first witness and others reached the spot.

As per the Bench, it was difficult to believe that the first witness had actually witnessed the incident. “In that view of the matter, we find that the learned Division Bench of the High Court could have granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant on the basis of the inconsistencies in the testimonies of all the three alleged eyewitnesses”, the Bench said.

Thus, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the State’s appeal.

Cause Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Deepu Verma @ Devendra Lal (Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1700 OF 2014)

Appearance:

Appellant: Additional Advocate General Kaushalpati Gautam, AOR Akshat Kumar

Respondent: Senior Advocate S Janani, AOR Deepak Goel, Advocates Gopal Singh Chauhan, Sharika Rai

Click here to read/download Judgment