HARIJANA THIRUPALA AND ORS. versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 01-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARIJANA THIRUPALA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD 
AUGUST I, 2002 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, J 860 : 
Section 302 and Section 302 rlw Section 34-Murder-Prosei:ution under 
Section 302-Acquittal by trial Court-Conviction by High Court u/s 302 r/ C 
w 34 without dislodging the reasons given by trial court-Premeditation and 
intention of the accused to cause death not proved-On appeal-Held, in the 
facts of the case conviction unsustainable. 
Criminal Trial: 
Appreciation of evidence-In appreciating evidence the approach of the 
Court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated. 
Criminal Jurisprudence: 
D 
Accused is presumed to be innocent unless such presumption is rebutted E 
by the prosecution - If two views are possible on the evidence produced in 
the case, one favourable to the accused is to be accepted-In cases where the 
court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the benefit 
of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. 
High Court-Power and duty of in criminal appeal-Held, it has power 
to review the evidence to reach its own independent conclusion-But it will 
not interfere with an order of acquit/a/ lightly or merely because one other 
view is possible-Duty is cast on the High Court while reversing an order of 
acquittal, to examine and discuss the reasons given by the trial court for 
F 
acquit/al and then to dispel these reasons. 
G 
Appellants-accused were charged and prosecuted under Section 302 
IPC for having committed murder of a person. The motive of murder was 
that deceased refused to sell a hotel which he was running, to appellant 
Nos. 1 and 2, despite their insistence and threatening not to sell the same 
3N 
H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A to third parties. As per the prosecution, Appellants 1 and 2 went to the 
scene of occurrence and after heated exchange, they picked up sticks from 
the spot and assaulted the deceased. Thereafter appellant No.3 came with 
a crow-bar and assaulted the deceased. PWsl and 2 were the eye witnesses 
to the incident. 
B 
Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to 
prove them guilty beyond reasonable doubt; that evidence of PWs 1 and 
2 were unrelia
0
ble as their evidence was conflicting and they being related 
witnesses their evidence was not corroborated; that prosecution failed to 
prove motive; that in view of the materials not proving the overt act of 
C appellants 1 and 2 the very presence of PWsl and 2 at the time of 
occurrence was doubtful; that no evidentiary value should be given to the 
testimony of PWs 1 and 2 as to identification of appellant No.3; there was 
delay in lodging FIR; PW3 accompanying PWsl and 2 to police station 
was doubtful inasmuch as investigating officer did not examine him at 
police station· and as per evidence of IO, PW3 was not present even at the 
D time of inquest. 
In appeal, High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted 
the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 
34 IPC. 
E 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that High Court 
manifestly erred in setting aside the well considered order of acquittal 
passed by trial Court; that the order of acquittal could not be disturbed 
merely because High Court could take a different view when it was not 
shown that either reasons recorded on appreciation of evidence by the trial 
F court were perverse or untenable or any material evidence was ignored; 
that conviction by High Court u/s 302 r/w Section 34 was untenable when 
the case was registered and charge was framed under Section 302 IPC; 
that prosecution failed to establish motive; that PWsl and 2 were not 
reliable since they were related witnesses, there were contradictions and · 
omissions in their statement coupled with their conduct, and since their 
G evidence was contradicted by evidence of the doctor that non-examination 
of independent witnesses was fatal to prosecution case. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court committed a serious error in disturbing the 
H order of acquittal recorded by trial court that too without dislodging the 
HARIJANA THIRUPALA v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. 
38 J 
reasons given by trial court. While doing so, did not bear in mind the well- A 
settled principles of criminal administration of justice as to what should 
be the approach in reversing an order of acquitt

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