Case Law Details
H. D. Sundara & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction in 23-Year-Old Case, Cites Flawed High Court Judgment
Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment by the High Court of Karnataka, acquitting the surviving appellants in a double murder case dating back to 1999. In its ruling for H. D. Sundara & Ors. Vs State of Karnataka, the apex court delivered a sharp critique of the High Court’s decision to overturn a trial court’s acquittal, stating that the appellate court “has not done its duty.”
The case stems from a violent incident on August 29, 1999, in Hebbale village, rooted in a property and water dispute between the families of the complainant, Jagadeesha (PW-1), and his uncle, Mariyappa (the original accused no.1). The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with weapons like sticks, clubs, and knives, assaulted Jagadeesha’s brothers, Manjunatha and Shivarama, leading to their deaths. The eyewitnesses, including the complainant, also claimed to have been assaulted when they tried to intervene.
Following an investigation, the case went to a Sessions Court, which, after a detailed examination of the evidence, acquitted all the accused. The State of Karnataka subsequently appealed this decision to the High Court. The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting the appellants for offences punishable under Part I of Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code. The convicted were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
The appellants then moved the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s conviction. During the pendency of the appeal, two of the appellants passed away.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, argued that the High Court had failed to properly apply its mind to the evidence on record. He contended that the High Court did not record a finding that conviction was the only possible conclusion, a necessary condition for overturning an acquittal. He further pointed out that the prosecution had failed to explain a grievous injury sustained by one of the accused, and that there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR).
Representing the State of Karnataka, Additional Advocate General Mr. Nishanth Patil submitted that the delay in the FIR was minor and had been explained. He argued that the evidence from five eyewitnesses was sufficient to prove the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and urged the Supreme Court to re-appreciate the evidence itself if it found the High Court’s judgment unsatisfactory.
Judicial Precedents and Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court bench began its consideration by summarising the established legal principles and judicial precedents governing an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court outlined the following key principles:
- An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused.
- The appellate court is entitled to re-appreciate all evidence on record.
- The primary question for the appellate court is whether the trial court’s view was a “possible view” based on the evidence.
- If the trial court’s view is possible, the appellate court cannot reverse the acquittal simply because another view is also possible.
- An acquittal can only be overturned if the appellate court finds that the only conclusion from the evidence is that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court also noted the advantage a trial judge has in observing the demeanour of witnesses, a factor that contributes to assessing their credibility.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s judgment to be severely lacking. It observed that the High Court had failed to discuss the testimony of eyewitnesses, record findings after re-appreciating evidence, or even consider if the trial court’s decision was a “possible view.” The judgment, according to the Supreme Court, “jumped to the conclusion” of guilt without providing any reasoning on the individual roles of the accused or the applicability of Section 149 of the IPC.
Declining to remand the case back to the High Court due to the nearly 24-year delay since the incident, the Supreme Court proceeded to examine the trial court’s findings. It found the trial court’s analysis to be “very detailed.” The apex court highlighted the factors that the trial court had correctly considered, which created reasonable doubt:
- Unexplained Injury: The prosecution offered no explanation for a grievous injury (a disfigured thumb) suffered by the main accused. The Court deemed this a “serious lacuna” in the prosecution’s case.
- Delay in FIR: There was a noticeable delay between the incident, the medical examination of the injured complainant, and the official registration of the FIR.
- Prior Dispute: The trial court had noted that the complainant’s party had previously secured anticipatory bail following a complaint filed against them by the accused, indicating a history of animosity and litigation.
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s decision to acquit was a “possible conclusion” based on a thorough analysis of the evidence. Therefore, the High Court erred in interfering with it.
The appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, directing the immediate release of the appellants unless they were detained in another case.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by which the order of their acquittal, passed by the Sessions Court, was overturned. The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Part I of Section 304 and Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. We may refer to a few factual aspects of the case. PW-1 (Jagadeesha) is the complainant. The complainant’s family had property in the village Hebbale. The appellant no.1 – accused no.1-Mariyappa is PW-1’s uncle, with whom PW-1’s family was having a dispute over water. Manjunatha and Shivarama are the brothers of PW-1, who are the victims of the offence. On 29th August 1999, both entered the village Hebbale to engage labourers for plucking ginger. PW-1 followed them. On the road to the village, he found that PW-2 (Sundara) and PW-6 (Ravi) were sitting on a culvert. When he was talking to them, they heard the hue and cry from the village, and therefore, they rushed to the village and found that the appellants, who are relatives of PW-1, were holding various weapons like sticks, kathi and club and they were assaulting Manjunatha and Shivarama. It is alleged that accused no.1-Mariyappa assaulted Shivarama by using a club. Accused no.8-Puttappa also assaulted Manjunatha by using a club. Accused no.7-Rajappa used a stick as a weapon of assault for assaulting Shivarama. Accused no.5-Somashekara stabbed Shivarama by using a knife. Accused no.6-Krishnappa assaulted Manjunatha on his head by using a club. Further, an assault was made by accused no.3-Chandrahasa by putting a stone on the chest of Shivarama. Even accused no.4-Rajakumara crushed the leg of Shivarama with a stone. Though PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 tried to rescue the deceased, they could not save the deceased. Accused no.3-Chandrahasa caught hold of PW-2 (Sundara) and assaulted him by using a sickle (kathi). Accused no. 1 assaulted PW-1 with a club. Accused no.1 also assaulted PW-1’s mother on the right hand.
3. The Trial Court acquitted all the accused. However, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has interfered and convicted the appellants as narrated above.
4. Accused no.6 died during the pendency of the trial. The accused no.1 – appellant no.1 and accused no.7 – appellant no.7 died during the pendency of this appeal. Counsel for the appellants has filed I.A. No. 71417 of 2023 – application for permission to file additional documents. Annexure A-1 and A2 are copies of the Death Certificates of appellant no.1 and appellant no.7 respectively. The said application is allowed and the Cause Title stands modified accordingly. Formal amendment to the Cause Title be carried out accordingly. The appeal stands abated as regards these two appellants. Accused no.2 – appellant no.2, accused no.3 – appellant no.3, accused no.4 – appellant no.4 and accused no.6 – appellant no.6 have so far undergone incarceration for a period of about one year and two months. Accused no.5 – appellant no.5-Somashekar has been incarcerated for five years and three months.
SUBMISSIONS
5. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court did not apply its mind to the evidence on record. Moreover, the High Court has not recorded any finding that the only conclusion possible was that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Without recording any such finding, the High Court has overturned the order of acquittal. Moreover, no specific finding is recorded by the High Court that every accused or any particular accused caused the death of the two deceased persons. He pointed out that there is no finding about the applicability of Section 149 of IPC. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Moreover, there is a delay in recording FIR. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that though a grievous injury was suffered by accused no.1 – appellant no.1, the prosecution offered no explanation about the said injury. He submitted that in view of the said injury, in fact, a First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) ought to have been registered, and an investigation ought to have been carried out.
6. Mr. Nishanth Patil, the Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka, submitted that the delay in registering the FIR may be of a very few hours, which has been explained. Moreover, the evidence of eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 proves the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, that would have been the only conclusion which could be drawn on the basis of evidence on record. He submitted that if the impugned judgment is not satisfactory, this Court, after re-appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record, can satisfy its conscience about the correctness of the ultimate conclusion of the High Court.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
7. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: –
(a) The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
(b) The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
(c) The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
(d) If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and
(e) The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
8. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court’s view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.
9. There is one more aspect of the matter. In many cases, the learned Trial Judge who eventually passes the order of acquittal has an occasion to record the oral testimony of all material witnesses. Thus, in such cases, the Trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour. While deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses, their demeanour remains in the back of the mind of the learned Trial Judge. As observed in the commentary by Sarkar on the Law of Evidence, the demeanour of a witness frequently furnishes a clue to the weight of his testimony. This aspect has to be borne in mind while dealing with an appeal against acquittal.
10. Coming back to the facts of the case, after having carefully perused the impugned judgment, we find that there is no discussion about the testimony of eyewitnesses for deciding whether their testimony could be believed. In fact, there are no findings recorded by the High Court after re-appreciating the evidence. There is not even a finding to indicate that the High Court considered the question whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view. Without recording any reasons and without recording any finding regarding the role played by the appellants individually and collectively, the High Court has jumped to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has been established. The judgment does not throw any light on the question who were the authors of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured witnesses. There is no finding as to how Section 149 of IPC gets attracted.
11. Thus, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the High Court, as an Appellate Court, while hearing the appeal against acquittal, has not done its duty.
12. However, we cannot take recourse to the order of remand since the subject offence has taken place about twenty-three and half years back. We have perused the evidence of the eyewitnesses, namely PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7, and the Trial Court findings. We find that the Trial Court has made a very detailed analysis of the depositions of the witnesses. The incident was of 9:00 p.m. The Trial Court noted that at 11:40 p.m. on the date of the incident, PW-1 was examined by a doctor in a hospital. FIR was not lodged immediately thereafter. It was registered at 1:30 a.m. on the next date. The Trial Court noted that the appellant no.1’s thumb was disfigured. For this grievous injury suffered by the appellant no.1 – accused no.1, there was no explanation by the prosecution.
13. The Trial Court found that the failure to investigate the cause of injury suffered by the accused no.1 is a serious lacuna in a prosecution case. On facts, it is further noted by the Trial Court that on the basis of prior complaint filed by the accused no.1 – appellant no.1 alleging commission of assault by PW-1, PW-2, PW-7, and PW-12, all of them got anticipatory bail from the competent court.
14. There was a fight over property between the accused and the family of the complainant. After in-depth scrutiny of the testimony of the eyewitnesses, for the reasons recorded, the Trial Court was unable to accept their testimony. After having examined the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses and findings of the Trial Court, we must hold that the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court were possible conclusions which could have been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record.
15. Therefore, the appeal succeeds, and we set aside the impugned Judgment dated 21st September 2010. We direct that unless the appellants are required to be detained in custody in connection with some other case, they shall be forthwith set at liberty.
16. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Author Bio
