V.K. RATHEESH versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 06-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
V.K. RATHEESH 
v. 
ST ATE OF KERALA 
JULY 6, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
S.378-Appeal against acquittal-Trial court found discrepancies in 
C proserntion case and ordered acquittal-High Court set aside the order of 
acquittal holding that discrepancies pointed out by trial court were trivia/-
Held: The High Court's judgment is indefensible as it did not indicate any 
reason for discarding the conclusion of trial court. 
D 
S.378-Appeal against acquittal-Re-appreciation of evidence by 
appellate court-Scope of-Discussed. 
E 
F 
S.378-Two views possible on the evidence adduced-One pointing to 
the·guilt of the accused and the other lo his innocence-Held: View favourable 
to accused lo be adopted--Administration of criminal justice. 
Appellant was tried in a murder case. Trial court found discrepancies 
in the prosecution case and ordered acquittal. On appeal, High Court held 
that the order of acquittal was not proper as the discrepancies pointed 
out by trial Court were trivial and immaterial. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that High Court has 
not even indicated any reason as to why it discarded the conclusion of trial 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
G 
HELD: I.I. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing 
H 
the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the 
order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of 
innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden 
thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal 
314 
V.K. RATHEESH v. STATE OF KERALA 
315 
cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, A 
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. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from 
acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. B 
In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the 
appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been 
acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused 
really committed any offence or not. (318-C-EI 
Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 2 Supreme C 
567, relied on. 
1.2. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the 
appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there 
are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. (318-E-FI 
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State a/Maharashtra, AIR (1973) 
SC 2622; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. Slate of Gujaral, (1996) 4 Supreme 167; 
Jaswant Singh v. State of Hmyana, (2000) 3 Supreme 320; Raj Kishore Jha 
v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152; State of Punjab v. Kamai[ 
Singh, (2003) 5 Supreme 508 and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr., 
D 
(2003) 7 Supreme 17, relied on. 
E 
2. By making observations in an abstract and general manner High 
Court concluded that the discrepancies were immaterial, without even 
discussing the factors which weighed with the trial court to hold that the 
prosecution evidence was not cogent and credible. Therefore, the order 
of acquittal should not have been set aside in the manner as done. 
F 
(318-H; 319-Al 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1375 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.1998 of the Kerala High Court G 
at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 485/1996. 
V.J. Francis for the Appellant. 
Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Respondents. 
H 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upsetting 
the order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge Kasaragod, Kerala. 
Appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under 
B Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the '!PC'). According to the 
prosecution on 23.12.1994 at about 11.15 a.m. he stabbed one Narayanan 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') to death at the private bus stand. 
The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the order of acquittal 
passed by the trial court was not proper and the appellant was convicted for 
C the o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.