MOHAN @SRINIVAS @SEENA @TAILOR SEENA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 13-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 451
451
MOHAN @SRINIVAS @SEENA @TAILOR SEENA
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2014)
DECEMBER 13, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.378, 384 – Appeal
against acquittal – Murder of police officer – Appellants acquitted
giving benefit of doubt – Acquittal reversed by High Court – On
appeal, held: Most of the witnesses turned hostile – PW1-Sub
Inspector of Police, the sterling witness of the prosecution had an
axe to grind against the accused who had given a complaint against
him – It is too strange that he could be a chance witness – Many
contradictions in statements made by PW-1 and PW-2-Duty constable
– Alleged occurrence was said to have happened at about 5 p.m.
on a busy road with heavy traffic however, except the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-2, there was no other evidence relied upon by the
prosecution – On motive, there was nothing to implicate the accused
with motive to murder the deceased – High Court did not undertake
the exercise as mandated u/s.378 r/w s.384 in reversing the reasoned
decision rendered by the trial court – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302,
506-B, 120B r/w 34.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.378, 384 – Scope of
– Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 378 CrPC enables the State to prefer
an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC speaks
of the powers that can be exercised by the Appellate Court. When
the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused,
presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate
Court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes
more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence.
Certainly, the court of first instance has its own advantages in
delivering its verdict, which is to see the witnesses in person
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
while they depose. The Appellate Court is expected to involve
itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before
it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the
trial court is both possible and plausible view. When two views
are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal
is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the
advantage of having seen the witnesses. Article 21 of the
Constitution of India also aids the accused after acquittal in a
certain way, though not absolute. The Appellate Court is expected
to maintain a degree of caution before making any remark. [Paras
20, 22][460-B-E; 461-A]
1.2 The trial court considered the testimonies of the other
witnesses first before embarking upon eye witnesses and the
material witness. It gives exhaustive reasoning for its ultimate
conclusion. Most of the witnesses turned hostile. PW-16, an
independent witness also states that she has not seen the
occurrence and she heard that the deceased was dead before
taking to the hospital. The trial court took enormous pains in
considering the evidence of all the witnesses one by one. On
considering the evidence of PW-7, a shoe shop owner, it gives its
cogent reasoning for its non-acceptance. The previous bill and
the relevant bill had a difference of about 8 months in between
and this witness has not seen who has purchased the chappals
marked as M.O. 8 from his shop. Similarly, PW-20 who was
running an STD booth could not convince the trial court as he
could not say that the accused had made calls from his booth. On
motive, it was correctly analysed that there was nothing to
implicate the accused with motive to murder the deceased.
PW-1 was the sterling witness of the prosecution. Certainly, he
had an axe to grind against the accused who had given a complaint
against him. He was facing a departmental enquiry and suspension.
It is too strange that he could be a chance witness. His evidence
was thoroughly analysed by the trial court including the distance
between his place of work and his residence. He did not use his
wireless which was not in operation and went to the police station
to give an oral complaint the first time but the same was not
registered. PW-25 was known to him and it is surprising as to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
why no attempt was made to save the deceased immediately by
taking him to the nursing home which was 50 meters away as a
normal human conduct. There are many contradictions between
the statements made by PW-1 and PW-2. It is also surprising as
to how th

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