HC Can Interfere In Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal Only If Trial Court Findings Are Either Perverse Or Impossible: SC
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court can interfere in the criminal appeal against acquittal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible.
The court added that if two views are possible in a case and Trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference is not warranted by the High Court, unless the same is perverse.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal that challenged the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which it allowed the appeal of the State being filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, who acquitted the accused persons under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible. As already discussed hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge. … In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view.”
Advocate Varun Thakur appeared for the appellants/accused while Advocate Pashupathi Nath Razdan appeared for the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
The High Court had reversed the judgment of the Trial Judge who acquitted the accused persons in murder case. It had awarded rigorous imprisonment for life. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was in a love relation with the daughter of the accused no. 2 (mother) and sister of the accused no. 1 (brother). However, her marriage was solemnized with another person but even then, she was in contact with him. Due to this, the accused persons caused death of the deceased in furtherance of their common intention.
The prosecution relied upon the evidence of a man who saw that the brother was dragging a dead body from his house and the mother was washing the blood stains at the door of their house. Hence, an FIR was registered and upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. On an appeal preferred by the State, the High Court reversed this judgment and being aggrieved by this, the accused persons were before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “We have no hesitation to hold that the findings of the learned trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of the material placed on record. … This elaborate exercise of the learned trial Judge, has been washed away by the learned Division Bench of the High Court in a totally cursory manner.”
The Court further said that the Trial Judge had given sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the Investigating Officer (IO) and the other witnesses and hence, the High Court totally erred in observing that the Trial Judge had brushed aside the evidence of the IO simply on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
“Rather, it is the judgment of the High Court which is based on conjectures and surmises. … At the cost of repetition, we are compelled to say that the findings of the High Court are totally based on conjectures and surmises. Though the High Court has referred to the law laid down by this Court with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has totally misapplied the same and a very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct appreciation of evidence by the trial Court has been reversed by the High Court, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises”, it added.
The Court, therefore, held that the judgment of the High Court was totally unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of the High Court, and acquitted the appellants.
Cause Title- Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 258)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Varun Thakur, Ramkaran, Shraddha Saran, Brajesh Pandey, and AOR Varinder Kumar Sharma.
Respondent: AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Vikas Bansal, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Ojaswini Gupta, and Ruby.
