Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000809-000809 – 2014 |
| Diary Number | 5406/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Bench |
|
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for all criminal appeals |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms High Court acquittal; reaffirms Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (appeal against acquittal) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that although appellate courts have full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider evidence in appeals against acquittal, they must exercise restraint. There is a double presumption of innocence—first under general criminal jurisprudence and then reinforced by the trial court’s acquittal. If two reasonable views arise, the view in favour of the accused must prevail; reversal requires “substantial and compelling reasons.” |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant’s son, an Indian Army Captain, was allegedly murdered by respondents amid a family land dispute. Trial court convicted respondents under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. High Court acquitted on grounds of material discrepancies and improbabilities in prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s plausible re-appraisal and dismissed the appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts when dealing with appeals against acquittal |
| Persuasive For | Trial courts in evaluating whether to grant leave to appeal against acquittal; High Courts in criminal appeals |
| Follows | Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that appellate courts, despite broad powers, must defer to acquittal if two reasonable interpretations of evidence exist.
- Emphasises the double presumption of innocence: constitutional presumption plus reinforcement by trial acquittal.
- Clarifies that “substantial and compelling reasons” are required to overturn acquittal, not just another possible view.
- Affirms that discrepancies in eyewitness testimony and failure to test the weapon ballistically can justify acquittal.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to resist appeals against acquittal in criminal cases, highlighting the high threshold for reversal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court’s appraisal of evidence revealed material discrepancies in eyewitness accounts, physical improbabilities (dragging an army officer by aged accused), and gaps in weapon handling testimony.
- No ballistic expert examination of the recovered licensed firearm further weakened the prosecution case.
- Supreme Court reiterated that in appeals against acquittal, the appellate court has full power to re-appreciate evidence but must defer to a plausible acquittal view.
- Citing Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, it distinguished “must be proved” (certainty) from “may be proved” (conjecture).
- Following Chandrappa, it stressed the double presumption of innocence and requirement of “substantial and compelling reasons” for interference.
- Concluded that the High Court’s conclusion was a plausible one, and no grounds existed to disturb the acquittal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant-Complainant)
- Eyewitnesses saw respondents dragging and firing upon the deceased.
- Medical and post-mortem evidence confirmed fatal shotgun injuries.
- Licensed firearm of one respondent was recovered from the scene.
Respondents
- Denial of presence or involvement; all accused claimed false implication due to family enmity.
- Improbability of dragging a fit army officer by senior/cancer-patient accused.
- Gaps in prosecution story: delayed complaint, no ballistic testing, unexplained hockey-stick and pistol possession.
Factual Background
A family property dispute escalated into a fatal shooting of Captain Praveen Kumar on 08.06.1996. An FIR under Sections 307 and later 302 r/w 34 IPC was registered. The trial court convicted respondents for murder; the High Court acquitted them, finding the prosecution’s narrative rife with contradictions and improbabilities. The Supreme Court, upon close examination of evidence and principles governing appeals against acquittal, dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC (murder and common intention)
- Section 313, CrPC (recording accused’s statements)
- Principles under the Criminal Procedure Code governing appellate re-appreciation of acquittal orders
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms established Supreme Court jurisprudence on appeals against acquittal (Chandrappa and Shivaji Bobade).