Welcome to Drishti Judiciary - Powered by Drishti IAS
         









Home / Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Appellate Court in Reversing Judgment

    «
 20-Sep-2024

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently the Supreme Court observed that Appellate Courts must provide strong reasons when reversing a trial court's acquittal, as established in the Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar (1977) case. Higher Court criticized the High Court's hasty approach that overturned a well-reasoned acquittal without substantial grounds, and the importance of thorough evaluation in criminal justice. 

  • This case emphasizes the need for a careful assessment of witness credibility before changing a trial court's decision. 

What was the Background of Ramesh and another v. State of Karnataka Case? 

  • Two appellants were implicated in FIR No. 26 of 2005 registered under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
  • The case was registered at Bannerghatta Police Station, Bangalore Rural District. 
  • The appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, along with three other accused persons. 
  • The prosecution's case alleged that the five accused conspired to murder Babureddy (the deceased) and attacked him with deadly weapons on 7th February 2005, at about 7:30 AM near Hullahalli Gate Bus Stand. 
  • The alleged motive stemmed from a dispute over a land sale transaction mediated by the deceased between Appellant No. 1 and one Narayana Reddy (PW-10). 
  • The prosecution produced 25 witnesses and presented documents and material objects as evidence. 
  • The Trial Court acquitted all five accused of all charges on 3rd May 2006. 
  • The State of Karnataka appealed against the acquittal before the High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2006). 
  • On 29th March 2011, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted all five accused. 
  • The accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, but it was initially dismissed as they failed to surrender. 
  • Upon surrender of three accused (including the two appellants), the appeal was restored for them. 
  • One appellant (Praveen Alexander) passed away during the proceedings, and the appeal was dismissed for him due to abatement. 
  • The remaining two appellants were granted bail by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2019. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court noted that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court must clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the trial court's reasoning to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt. 
  • The Court expressed that it is insufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about witness credibility; rather, it must convincingly demonstrate that it was nearly impossible for the trial court to reject the testimony. 
  • The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's approach in dealing with the appeal was brusque, resulting in the conviction of the appellants without providing substantive reasons for overturning the trial court's well-considered judgment of acquittal. 
  • The Court observed that once the trial court found insufficient evidence to convict the accused, the burden was on the High Court to record clear findings in relation to each charge, particularly the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, which it failed to do. 
  • The Supreme Court referenced the principles laid down in Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2007), observed the appellate court's power to review evidence in acquittal appeals, but also states the double presumption of innocence that favors the accused in such cases. 
  • The Court concluded that the High Court's cryptic observations and lack of reasoned analysis in reversing the acquittal did not meet the jurisprudential standards required for overturning a trial court's judgment of acquittal. 

What is Section 442 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

  • About: 
  • Revisional Powers of the High Court: 
    • The High Court has discretionary revisional powers over proceedings where it has called for the record, or which otherwise come to its knowledge. 
    • In exercising these powers, the High Court may utilize any powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 427, 430, 431, and 432 of the BNSS. 
    • The High Court may also exercise powers conferred on a Court of Session by section 344 of the BNSS. 
  • Resolution of Divided Opinions:  
    • When the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of as provided in section 433 of the BNSS. 
  • Safeguard for the Accused:  
    • No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless they have had an opportunity to be heard, either personally or through an advocate, in their own defense. 
  • Prohibition on Converting Acquittals:  
    • The High Court is expressly barred from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction under its revisional powers. 
  • Limitation on Revision When Appeal is Available:  
    • Where an appeal lies under the BNSS and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. 
  • Treatment of Revision Application as Appeal:  
    • If an application for revision has been made to the High Court in a case where an appeal lies, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal. 
    • This is subject to the High Court being satisfied that: 
      • The application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies, 
      • It is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. 
  • Scope of Revisional Powers:  
    • The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is supervisory in nature, aimed at ensuring that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence. 
  • Procedural Flexibility:  
    • This provision allows the High Court to correct procedural errors made by parties who mistakenly file for revision instead of appeal, ensuring that substantive justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities. 
  • Discretionary Nature: 
    • The use of the word "may" in subsections (1) and (5) emphasizes the discretionary nature of the High Court's powers under this section. 
  • The section strikes a balance between the High Court's supervisory powers and the finality of lower court decisions, particularly in cases of acquittal. 

Case Laws: 

  • K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1962): 
    • The Supreme Court observed the options available to the High Court when dealing with acquittals in revision. 
    • The Court held that if an acquittal is passed by the trial court, the High Court may remit the matter back or order a retrial. 
    • If the acquittal is by the first appellate court, K. Chinnaswamy Reddy established that the High Court can either remit for rehearing of the appeal or order a retrial in appropriate cases. 
  • Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019): 
    • This case clarified that a victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC does not require special leave to appeal, unlike a complainant's right under Section 378(4) CrPC. 
  • Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (2022): 
    • The Supreme Court observed that under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional powers.  
    • The Court emphasized that the 2009 amendment to Section 372 CrPC grants victims an absolute right to appeal against acquittals, impositions of inadequate compensation, or convictions for lesser offenses.