LexDHANAPAL versus STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1116 A DHANAPAL - +.. __. v. STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADRAS (Criminal Appeal No. 987 of 2002) SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 .. B [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ·t- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal ~ against acquittal - POwer of appellate court to interfere - Held: c Appellate court would interfere with the order of trial coud only for 'very substantial and compelling reasons' - It can re- appreciate the entire evidence on record and review the trial court's conclusion - If two reasonable or possible views can be reached-one as regard acquittal,· ·other of conviction, High - D Courts/appellate courts must pass order in favour of accused ).. - On facts, view taken by trial court in acquitting the accused ~- of the offences punishable u/ss. 307 and 302 rlw s.34 was a , : possible or plausible view - High Court should not substitute the same by. its own pbssible view - Order of High Court E convicting the accused uls. 302134 is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307 and 34. Trial court acquitted the appellant and the other f. accused of the offences punishable ulss. 307 and 302 rl F w s.34 IPC. High Court convicted the accused nos.1, 2 : · and 4 uls. 302134 IPC and imposed sentence of life imprisonment and accused no.3 u/s.307 IPC and imposed sentence of five years. Accused nos.2 to 4 died during the pendency of appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-accused no.1. G Allowing the appeal, the Court 'r '( HELD: 1 The accused is presumed. to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused P~ossessed this H 1116 DHANAPAL v. STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 1117 MADRAS .. ~ presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial A ~ court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is _ _. innocent. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence : on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and1aw, but the appellate court must B give due weight and conside.r;atiQn to the decision of the ... trial court. The appellate c~l•rt should always keep in ; mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the c witnesses. The appellate court. may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's' acquittal if it has 'very substantial and compelling rea,sons' for doing so. If two ==- reasonable or possible views ca.f'be reached-one that ..A, leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High D ~ Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. [Para 41] [1137-A-F] .. ;,\ Sheo Swarup v. King Emper6f).IR 1934 Privy Council 227; Surajpal Singh and Ors. v. State AIR 1952 SC 52; E! · Tulsiram Kanu v. The State AIR 1954 SC 1; Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807; Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR --t 1957 SC 216; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200; Khedu Mohton and Ors. v. State of Bihar 4 (1970) 2 SCC 450; Bishan Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (1974) 3 SCC 288; K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. F (1979) 1 SCC 355; Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529; Sambasivan and Ors. v. State of Kera/a (1998) 5 SCC 412; Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85; Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (2002) 6 SCC G' ·. ---( 470; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180; State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran ·and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755; Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415; Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450, H 1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A relied on. J... _.. 2.1. The High Court could not have shifted the burden of proof on the accused. According to the J' fundamental principles of the Evidence Act, it is for the B prosecution to have proved its own case. The High Court ', was not justified in weaving out a different and new prosecution version. The Court is under the bounden duty and obligation to deal with the evidence as it is. No >-- improvement or rewriting of evidence is permissible. In t c the instant case, P.W.1-eye witness and the complainant had turned hostile and P.W.3-another eye witness also did not support the prosecution case. The testimony of P.W.2 is also not wholly reliable. [P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.