Criminal Jurisprudence
Appeal against acquittal—Criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty—All the safeguards and jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice—Principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as under :
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.
[Para 36]
Two-views theory—Possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon—‘Two-views theory’ has been judicially recognized by the courts and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views—However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. [Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 230; Sanjeev v. State of H.P., (2022) 6 SCC 294; Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, relied on]
[Para 26]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302—Murder—Proof of—Acquittal by trial court reversed by High Court—Appeal—Submissions that case is not based on circumstantial evidence and is based on direct evidence of prosecution witnesses, and therefore, the principles of circumstantial evidence shall not apply—Erroneous—Direct evidence of prosecution witnesses is to be tested on its own strength, especially in light of their subsequent conduct after the incident—As per their version, they were accessories to the fact, however, their subsequent conduct left much to be desired and therefore, their direct testimony was found to be incredible—In absence of credible direct evidence, the case essentially falls back on the circumstantial evidence—Failure of prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances—Contradictions between oral testimonies and medical examination reports, failure to seize essential materials from the scene of crime, failure to explain the mode of conveyance while going from one place to another, failure to prove the presence of third prosecution witness at the place of incident, failure to corroborate the injuries etc. are some of the deficiencies in the chain of circumstances—Circumstances in this case are far from conclusive and a conclusion of guilt could not be drawn from them—To sustain a conviction, the court must form the view that accused “must have” committed the offence, and not “may have”—High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal, without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or error in the reasoning of the trial court—Even on a fresh appreciation of evidence, the Apex Court is unable to agree with the findings of the High Court—Impugned order and judgment of High Court is set aside that and that of trial court is restored—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 37 to 39]