LexBHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322 : 2024 INSC 295 Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2019) 10 April 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in overturning the order of acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Interference by the appellate court, when: Held: Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after re-appreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible – Judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse – Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal – On facts, the High Court converted the acquittal of the appellants into conviction for offence punishable u/ss. 302/34 and s. 323 – High Court did not avert, if the view taken by the trial court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record – High Court ignored that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused – High Court’s finding on the burden of proof is completely erroneous – Finding of the trial court that the evidence of the prosecution witness did not inspire confidence is a possible finding which could have been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record – No reason for the High Court to overturn the order of acquittal when the findings of the trial court were possible findings that could be arrived at after re-appreciating evidence – Thus, the order of acquittal of the appellants upheld – Judgment and order of the High Court set aside, and that of the trial court restored – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 rw 34 and s. 323. [Paras 6, 7, 10, 11] Evidence – Burden of proof – Discharge of, by the accused, when: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 323 Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v. State of Gujarat Held: Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden – In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused – In the absence of the statutory provisions the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt [Para 7] List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Appeal against acquittal; Re-appreciate the evidence; Plausible view; Appellate Court; Burden of proof; Negative burden; Reverse onus clause; Statutory presumption; Discharge initial burden. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2018 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLA No. 838 of 1997 Appearances for Parties D.N. Ray, Sr. Adv., Dillip Kumar Nayak, Ms. Disha Ray, Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advs. for the Appellants. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The appellants, who are father and son, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on 17th September 1996. The allegation is that the appellants assaulted one Punjabhai (the deceased) with pipes and sticks. The deceased suffered a 324 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports large number of injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. By judgment dated 5th July 1997, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellants. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, the respondent - State of Gujarat preferred an appeal against acquittal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 14th December 2018, the High Court interfered and converted the acquittal of the appellants into a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC. By order dated 6th January 2020, this Court directed that the present appeal be listed for hearing. By order dated 18th May 2021, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail by the first appellant was rejected by this Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.