PERLA SOMASEKHARA REDDY AND ORS. versus STATE OF A.P. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 8 S.C.R. 145 
PERLA SOMASEKHARA REDDY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2006) 
MAY 6, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
'Sections 302, 302 rlw 149, 307, 120-8, 148: 
Murder - Charges framed under various sections of /PC 
- All accused acquitted by Trial Court - On appeal by State, 
High Court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 302 
D 
r/w 149 and 307 - Acquitted the accused of the rest of the 
charges except under Sections 120-8 and 148 - Appeal to 
Supreme Court - Powers of the Appellate Court against 
acquittal - Discussed - Principles reiterated - Reasonable 
doubt is a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense 
E 
- Concepts of probability and degrees thereof - Discussed 
- Allegation that FIR was ante timed is without any foundation 
~ 
- Thus, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any 
infirmity to warrant interference - Explosive Substances Act, 
1908, Sections 3 and 5 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 
Section 378. 
F 
The accused were charged under various Sections 
of the Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the accused. 
On an appeal preferred by the State, the High Court 
convicted the accused under Sections 302, 302 r/w 149 G 
and 307. It, however, acquitted the accused of the rest of 
the charges except under Sections 120-B and 148 IPC. 
Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
145 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. A bare reading of Section 378 Cr.P .C. 
(appeal in case of acquittal), makes it clear that no 
restrictions have been imposed by the legislature on the 
powers of the appellate court in dealing with appeals 
against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High 
B Court has full power to re-appreciate, review and 
reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which 
the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own 
conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact 
and of law are open to determination by the High Court 
c in an appeal against an order of acquittal. [Para 9] (156-
E-G] 
1.2. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of 
acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the 
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is 
D available to him under the fundamental principle of 
criminal jurisprudence that every person should be 
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty 
by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused 
having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his 
E innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, 
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. [Para 10] 
[156-H; 157-A-B] 
2.Powers of the appellate court while dealing with an 
F appeal against an order of acquittal are: 
(i) 
An appellate court has full power to review, 
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence 
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 
G 
(ii) 
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no 
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise 
of such power and an appellate court on the 
evidence before it may reach its own 
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of 
H 
law. 
• 
I-
PERLA SOMASEKHARA REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 147 
REP. BY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 
(iii) 
Various expressions, such as, "substantial A 
and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient 
grounds", "very strong circumstances", 
"distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", 
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive 
powers of an appellate court in an appea_I B 
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are 
./ 
more in the nature of "flourishes of language" 
to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate 
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail 
the power of the court tq review the evidence 
and to come to its own conclusion. 
c 
(iv) 
An appellate court, however, must bear in mind 
that in case of acquittal, there is double 
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, D 
the presumption of innocence is available to 
him under the fundamental principle of criminal 
jurisprudence that every person shall be 
-presumed to be innocent unless he is proved 
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, 
the accused having secured his acquittal, the E 
presumption of his innocence is furthe·r 
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the 
triaJ court. 
(v) 
If two reasonable conclusions are possible on . F 
the basis of the evidence on record, the 
appeUate court should not disturb the finding 
of acquittal

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