SETHU MADHAVAN NAIR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 09-08-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
! 
• 
H 
SETHU MADHAVAN NAIR & ORS. 
1'. 
THE STATE OF KERALA 
August 9, 1974 
[H.R. KHANNA, AND Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.j 
Code of Criminal Procedure S. 417 ~Appeal under Practice and Procedur~ -
Scope of power of High Court to review trial Court's Judgment. 
The appe11ants were tried for the offence of murder but were acquitted on the 
ground that there was no reliable and convincing evidence against them. The High 
Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted and sentenced them. 
On the question whether the High Court was in error in reversing the finding of 
acquittal recorded by Sessions Judge. 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD : The High Court was in error in reversing the judgment of the trial, 
court. The Sessions Judge had given convincing and cogent reasons in support 
of his conclusions. The view taken by him can, by no means, be described as un-
reasonable. Even if the High Court felt that on the material on record a different 
view was 
also poSsible, that fact did not justify interference with the judgment 
of acquittal. If two conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on 
record the High Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded' 
by the trial court. [6;9-DJ 
In an appeal under s. 417 Cr. P.C. against an order of acquittal, the High Court 
has full p0wer to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was. 
founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal 
should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it 
be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by 
the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give 
proper weight and consideration to such matters as (I) the view of the trial judge 
as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour 
of the accused, a pr~umption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has betn 
acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and rea-
sonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding or-
fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The 
High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the court below 
io support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgment 
which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. Further, if two conclusions-
can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the 
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It would follow as a coroUary from -
that, that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused was not un-
reasonable the occasion for the reversal of that view would not arise. [678. H 679C] 
CR·M1NAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 16 
ofl971. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 15th December, 1970 
of the Kerala High Court in Cr!. A.No. 256 of 1970. 
K. R. Kunhirama and A, S. Nambiar, for the appellants. 
K. T, Harindernath and A. G. Puddssery, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA J. 
Sethu Madhavan Nair and 12 others were tried in 
the court of the learned Sessions Judge Palghat for offences under 
sections J48 and 302 or in the alternative under section 302 read with, 
'374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975) 1 S.C.R. 
section 149 Indian Po1<al Code and were acquitted. On appeal by 
the State, the Kerala High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal 
and convicted the accused under section 302 read with section 149 
Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprison-
ment for life. The 13 accused thereafter filed the present appeal against 
the judgment of the High Court. 
Ananthakrishnan deceased was a la11downer of village Thanni-
"cri. He was also Secretary of the Karshaka Samajam, an organi-
zation of landowners. The accused arc workers of the local Marxist 
·Communist Party. About one or two months before the present 
occurrence, an agitation had been started by Karshaka Thozhilali 
Union, which was affiliated to the Marxist CommuP.ist Party, for The 
.enhancement of wages payable to agricultural labourers. As a result 
of that agitation, the landowners found difficulty in conducting their 
agricultural operation>. The relations between the landowners and 
the Marxist Communist Party c:insequently became strained. On 
March 12, 1969, it is stated, four

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