BATCU VENKATEHSWARLU AND ORS. versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 01-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 851 
-
BATCU VENKATEHSWARLU AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2001) 
DECEMBER 1, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND G.S. 
SINGHVI, JJ.] 
~ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 378 (1) and (3) -
Appeal against acquittal - Power of appellate court - Ambit c, 
and scope of -- Held: While dealing with an appeal against 
acquittal there is no limitation, restriction or condition on the 
power of appellate court - It has full power to reappreciate, 
review and reconsider the evidence at large on which acquittal 
was based and to reach its own conclusion on such evidence 
D 
- Both questions of law and fact are open for determination -
Court to bear in mind that in such case there is double 
presumption in favour of he accused viz. presumption of 
innocence and the same being reinforced by acquittal - On 
facts, the manner in which High Court disposed of the appeal 
E 
aga(nst acquittal, is not satisfactory - Hence, matter remitted 
to High Court for disposal afresh. 
Appellants-accused were tried under various 
offences under IPC. Trial court acquitted them. The 
appeal u/s. 378 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and the 
F 
~ 
accused were convicted. 
In appeal to this court, appellants contended that the 
High Court order was passed without following the 
parameters relating to appeals against acquittal. 
G 
. 
:'' 
) 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. An appellate court has full power to 
. 
. 851 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
~ 
A review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon 
which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its 
own conclusions on such evidence. ·Both questions of 
fact and of law are open to determination by the High 
Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. Bare 
8 reading of Section 378 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that no 
restrictions have been imposed by the legis.lature on the 
powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals 
against acquittal. [Paras 11] [863-H; 864-A-B] 
1.2. Various expressions, such as, "substantial and 
C compelling reasons"; "good and sufficient grounds", 
"very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", 
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail 
extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal 
against 'acquittal. Such phraseologies· are more in the 
D nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the 
reluctance ·of an.appellate court to interfere with acquittal 
than to· curtail the power of the court to review the 
evidence· and to come to its. own conclusion. [Para 37] 
It 
I 
• 
.. 
·E 
· ·1.3~·An appellate· court, however, must bear in mind 
that in cas.e of acquittal, there is double presumption in 
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of 
innocence is available to him under the fundamental 
principle of'ci'iminal jurisprudence that every pel'Son shall 
F be. presumed fo be innocent unless he is proved guilty 
by a co'mpetent court of law. Secondly, the accused 
having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his 
inn.ocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and 
. . 
. 
. 
, 
' 
. 
. 
. 
' 
. 
. 
.. 
G 
H 
str~og~l:len~d by Jhe trial _court. [Para 37] [879;.C-D] 
{~~ 
. 
. 
1.4.' lf'two' reasonable conclusions are possible on 
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court 
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the 
. trial court. ·[Para. 37l[879-D-El · , 
Prandas v. State AIR 1954 SC 36 and M.G. Agarwal v. 
BATCU VENKATEHSWARLU AND ORS. v. PUBLIC 
853 
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP. 
I 
A 
• 
~ 
State of Maharashtra 1963 (2) SCR 405, followed. 
Surajpal Singh v. $fate 1~52 SCR 193; Ajmf!r Singh v. 
state of Punjab 1953 SCR 418; Atley v. State of u.p. Al,~.1955 
SC 807; Aher Raja Khima v. St€!te of ~aura_sh'tra 1955 (2) 
SCR 1285; Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1.961 ,(3) SCR 
B 
120; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Mahar_ashtra 1973 
(2) sec 793; K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P 1979 (1) sec 
... 
355; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996 (9) SCC 
225; Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat 2002 (3) SCC 
57; Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. 2002 (4) SCC 85; c 
Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 
2002 (6) SCC 4,70; Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha 
2003 (12) sec 606; Kallu v. State of M.P. 2006 (10) sec 313 
and Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Kamataka 2007 (4) SCC 
415, relied on. 
D 
Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor 1934 (61) IA 398; ~ur Mohd.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.