Case Title: Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v. State Of Gujarat
Case no: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2019
Dated on: 10 April 2024
Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA and JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellants are a father and son who were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting one Punjabhai (the deceased) with pipes and sticks on 17 September, 1996. The deceased suffered a large number of injuries and ultimately succumbed to death. By judgment dated July 5, 1997, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellants stating that the prosecutions case was weak and testimony PW- 4 was unreliable. The respondent – State of Gujarat preferred an appeal against acquittal before the High Court. On 14th December 2018, the High Court overturned the acquittal, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgement of the High court the The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court. On 6th January 2020, the Supreme Court listed the appeal for hearing and continued an order exempting the second appellant from surrendering.
ISSUES
- whether the appellate court was successful in assessing the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record.
LEGAL PROVISION
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder. It prescribes the death penalty or life imprisonment as the punishment for committing murder.
Section 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 323 of the IPC: This section deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section restricts the use of statements made to the police during the course of an investigation. These statements cannot be used as evidence in the trial except for the purpose of contradicting a witness.
Section 161 of the CrPC: This section allows the police to examine any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case during the investigation.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the High Court, while overturning the order of acquittal, had relied upon the police statement of PW-4 and had erroneously put the burden on the appellants to adduce evidence to show their innocence. He submitted that the entire approach of the High Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, is completely erroneous. He submitted that there is no finding recorded by the High Court that the only possible view which could be taken based on the evidence was that the guilt of the appellants had been proved. The learned senior counsel submitted that the High Court had erred in overturning the order of acquittal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently submitted that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court was duty-bound to reappreciate the evidence, and after finding that evidence of PW-4, an eye- witness, completely inspires confidence, the High Court rightly interfered with the order of acquittal.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not address the main question of whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on the evidence on record. The Court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court must reappreciate the evidence. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Here the high court has failed to answer this question. The second error the High Court committed is that the High Court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the appellants, stating that they failed to adduce evidence in their support and failed to examine defence witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to discharge any burden unless there is a statutory presumption or reverse onus clause. Therefore, the High Court’s finding on the burden of proof is completely erroneous and contrary to the law of the land. The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence adduced and came to the conclusion that the finding of the Trial Court that the evidence of PW-4 did not inspire confidence is a possible finding which could have been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record. There was no reason for the High Court to overturn the order of acquittal. Henceforth, keeping in view the aforementioned circumstances the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and order dated 14th December 2018, and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellants. The first appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with any other case. The bail bonds of the second appellant were cancelled.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA
