LexSYED PEDA AOWLIA versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R 1151 SYED PEDA AOWLIA v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD (Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2001) JUNE 13, 2008 A B .,. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] .,. Penal Code, 1860; s. 302 rlw s. 34/Code of Criminal Pro- cedure, 1973; s.378 (1) & (3): c Murder - Acquittal of accused persons by trial court - Affirmed by High Court as against all the accused persons except the appellant convicting him for committing the offence of murder and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life - Correctness of - Held: Unless there are compelling and D substantial reasons, appellate Court not to interfere with the iudgment of acquittal - If two views are possible on the evi- dence adduced, one pointing guilt of accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to accused should be adopted by the Court - In the instant case, High Court did not E apply its mind to various aspects and the position in law relat- ing to scope for interference in appeal against an order of ac- quittal - Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the mat- ter is remitted to High Court for consideration afresh - Appeal against acquittal - Interference with, by Appellate Court. F Appellant and four accused persons were tried for committing the offence of murder u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC. Trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to es- tablish the case against the accused persons and directed acquittal of all the accused persons. On appeal, High G Court affirmed acquittal of all the accused persons ex- cept the appellant and found him guilty for committing the offence of murder punishable u/s.302 r/w.s.34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence 1151 H 1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 9 S.C.R. A the present appeal. t Accused-appellant contended that the High Court has not discussed the evidence of the witnesses and has come to abrupt conclusions about the acceptability of the B evidence. . Respondent-State submitted that though the High Court has not analysed the evidence in detail, its conclu- ~ sions are not erroneous. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The appeal filed by the State has been dis- posed of by the High Court in perfunctory manner. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where D the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascer- taining as to whether any of the accused really committed ~ any offence or not. (Para 4 and 5) [1154-E,H; 1155-A] 1.2 There is no embargo on the appellate Court review- ing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. E Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is. further strengthened by acquittal. (Para 5) [1154-E & F] 1.3 The golden thread which runs through the web F of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two ~ views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. G A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an inno- cent. (Para - 5) [1154-F,G & H] .., 1.4 The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal . H SYED PEDA AOWLIA v. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 1153 HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J] is to interfere only when there are compelling and substan- A tial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materi- als have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (Para - 5) [1155-B & C] Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra B ~ AIR (1973) SC 2622; Ramesh Babula! Doshi vs. State of ' -f Gujarat (1996) 4 Supreme 167; Jaswant Singh vs. State of Haryana (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State of Punjab vs. Kamai! Singh (2003) 5 Supreme 508; State of Punjab vs. c Pohla Singh & Anr. (2003) 7 Supreme 17 and VN. Ratheesh vs. State of Kera/a (2006) 10 SCC 617 - relied on. 2. In the instant case, the High Court has not applied its mind to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.