CHANDRAPPA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 15-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 23 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDRAPPA AND ORS. 
t-
v. 
STATEOFKARNATAKA 
FEBRUARY 15, 2007 
B 
(C.K. THAKKARANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 378-Penal Code, 1860-
r ' 
, 
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 rlw section 149-Acquittal of accused by 
c 
trial court-High Court reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the 
accused -Correctness of-Held, where two views are possible on record, 
one favourable to the accused should be adopted-On facts, the view taken 
by the trial court cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law-
Hence, order of acquittal passed by trial court restored. 
D 
Prosecution filed a charge-sheet before trial court against appellants-
accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w 
Section 149 IPC. The trial court, considering the contradictions and 
;., 
discrepancies in deposition of eye witnesses and non-examination of main 
witness, acquitted the appellants giving them a benefit of doubt. In an appeal 
~ 
E 
against the order of acquittal, the High Court reversed the order of the trial 
court. 
In appeal, the appellants contended that the High Court, in an appeal 
under section 378 Cr.P.C. can set aside the order of acquittal of the trial court 
only if it is satisfied that the reasons recorded are non-existent, extraneous, 
F 
perverse, acquittal palpably wrong, totally ill-founded or wholly misconceived; 
and that, on facts, the view taken by the trial court on the basis of evidence 
~ 
was legal, proper and in consonance with law and hence, the High Court erred 
in reversing the order of acquittal. 
Respondent State contended that the High Court has all the powers which 
G were exercised by the trial court and it is open to it to re-appreciate and review 
the evidence and come to its own conclusion; and that the High Court, on facts, 
rightly reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused. 
"" 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
r
H 
630 
t
A.
CHANDRAPPAv. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
631 
... 
-+ 
HELD: 1.1. Prosecution witnesses tried to suppress facts which would A 
throw doubt as to the correctness of the case or the manner in which the 
incident had happend. The view of the trial court that the accused could get 
benefit of doubt cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law. Even 
though, in an appeal against acquittal, powers of appellate court are as that of 
the trial court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire B 
evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion 
on fact as well as on law, in the present case, the view taken by the trial court 
y 
for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence, 
., 
therefore, it can be said that the other view was equally possible. But it is 
well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record 
and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought c 
not to be disturbed by the apt?ellate Court. In this case, a Possible view on the 
evidence of prosecution had been taken by the trial court which ought not to 
have been disturbed by the appellate Court. (Paras 43 & 44) 
1649-E, H; 650-A, BJ 
Shea Swarup & Ors. v. King Emperor, (1934) 61 IA 398: AIR (1934) D 
_, 
PC 227 2; Nur Mohammadv. Emperor, AIR (1945) PC 151; Prandas v. State, 
AIR (1954) SC 36 CB; Surajpal Singh v. State, 11952) SCR 193: AIR (1952) 
I 
SC 52; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, [1953) SCR 418: AIR (1953) SC 76; 
Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR (1955) SC 807; Aher Raja Khima v. State 
ofSaurashtra 11955( 2 SCR 1285: AIR (1956) SC 217; Sanwat Singh v. State E 
of Rajasthan, 11961) 3 SCR 120; AIR (1961) SC 715; MG. Agrawal v. State 
of Maharashtra, [1963) 2 SCR 405; AIR (1963) SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao 
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793; K. Gopal Reddy v. State 
of Andhra Pradesh, [1979) 2 SCR 363: (1979) 1 SCC 355: AIR (1979) SC 
387; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225; Alasrakha 
v. K Mansuriv. State of Gujarat, (2002 )3 SCC 57; Bhaqwan Singh & Ors. v. F 
State of MP., (2002) 4 SCC 85; Harijana Thirupala v. Public Procecutor, High 
Court of A.P., Hyderabad, [2002) 6 SCC 470; Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath 
Jha, [2003) 12 SCC 606 and Kallu v. State of A.P., 12006) 10 SCC 313: AIR 
(2006) SC 831 referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 853 of G 
2006. 
_), 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2005 of the High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.