Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1375 of 1999
PETITIONER:
V.N. Ratheesh
RESPONDENT:
State of Kerala
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/07/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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 Section 302 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’). 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 the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I
IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous
imprisonment. The prosecution version as unfolded during
trial was as follows :
On 23.12.1994 at 11.15 a.m. the accused stabbed
deceased to death at the private bus stand, Kanhangad. On
Ext.P1 complaint of H.R. Ashokan (PW1) and V.K. Raghavan
(PW 9), Sub Inspector of Police, Kanhangad Police Station,
registered Ext. P.9 F.I.R. in Crime No. 648 of 1994. The
accused had been taken to the police station by PW1 and
another, from whom MO1 dagger and MO2 sheath were
seized under Ext.P2 mahazar, which was attested by K.
Kanna (PW4), who was allegedly an eye witness. PW 9 also
visited the scene of incident where PW4 gave the details. P.
Habib Rahiman (PW10), Circle inspector took over the
investigation at about 2.45 p.m. on the same day. He held
inquest over the dead body from the mortuary of the
District Hospital, Kanhangad and gave his findings in
Ext.P.11, inquest report, under which MOs.3 and 4, clothes
worn by the deceased, were seized. Dr. C.V. Jayarajan
(PW8), Asst. Surgeon, District Hospital, Kanhangad,
conducted the postmortem and he set out his findings in
Ext.P8 postmortem certificate. The accused was arrested,
produced before the Magistrate and he was remanded.
Witnesses were questioned, statements recorded and final
report was filed against him for the aforesaid offence. He
pleased not guilty to the charge, whereupon prosecution
examined ten witnesses, marked sixteen exhibits and MOs.
1 to 4. When questioned under Sections 313 of the Criminal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Procedure Code, 1973 (in short the ’Cr.PC’) he denied the
incident as alleged, gave his own version and said that the
deceased Tharingil Sunny (PW 2) and others never let him
live in peace, that on 19.8.1994they trespassed into his
house, assaulted him, his wife and children. He was
hospitalized for treatment of the injuries sustained. On his
complaint a case was also registered against them. He had
to leave the place and take up residence in another place.
On the ill-fated day he had come to Kanhangad for
purchasing some articles for his pilgrimage to Sabarimala
and medicines for his child. At the bus stand the seven
accused persons, against whom he had filed complaint,
along with Aravindakshan (PW3) and one Pappan,
surrounded and attacked him. The deceased held him and
he was assaulted by one Kutty. He tried to wriggle out to
escape, when PW2 tried to stab him the blow accidentally
fell upon the deceased. He denied that he inflicted injuries
upon him as alleged, and maintained his innocence. He
further stated that the local police was inimical towards him
following a complaint filed by him against the then C.I. and
three police constables. The investigation was one sided
and biased. Exts. D1 to 3 were marked, but no witness was
examined in defence.
The trial court after consideration of the evidence
brought on record came to hold that so far as the eye
witnesses PWs 2 and 3 were concerned, there was great
deal of discrepancy in their version about the incident.
PW.4 who was stated to be an eye witness did not support
the prosecution case. Therefore, it was held that even if the
discrepant part of his evident is eschewed then also his
evidence was not credible and did not inspire confidence.
Similarly the evidence of PW1 did not inspire confidence.
The trial court observed that on a conjoint reading of the
evidence of PWs 2 and 3 it is clear that their version
improbablised the scenario described by the prosecution.
The conduct of PW3 was also indicated to be highly
suspicious. It was further noted that a friend of PW3, i.e.
Pappan (father of Sasi and Saji) who was also stated to be
standing by his side also resorted to the same unusual
conduct i.e. leaving the deceased who had allegedly received
knife blows even without caring to ascertain as to what had
happened. Though there cannot be any universal standard
as to how a witness would react, but in this case even after
the accused had left the place of occurrence they did not
care to ascertain as to what had happened to the deceased.
Though this itself is not a determinative factor, the trial
Court has rightly considered this to be a suspicions factor.
The trial Court also referred to various other circumstances
which clearly ruled out the presence of PWs 2 and 3.
Highlighting the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence the
trial Court directed acquittal. In the appeal filed by the
State, the High Court came to hold that the discrepancies
as pointed out by the trial Court were trivial and so called
discrepancies were immaterial and insufficient to disbelieve
them. Unfortunately the High Court did not analyse the
evidence and in a very cryptic manner discarded the
conclusions of the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The
High Court has not even indicated any reason as to why it
discarded the conclusions of the trial Court and it did not
even refer to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court to
direct acquittal.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
In response, learned counsel for the State submitted
that the High Court has taken an overall view of the matter.
It is well settled that minor discrepancies in evidence
cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version.
There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing
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 cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, 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. 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. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2) Supreme 567)]. 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. If
the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and
relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably
eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for
interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622), Ramesh Babulal Doshi
v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant Singh
v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore
Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152),
State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003 (5) Supreme 508 and
State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7) Supreme
17).
Judged on the touchstone of the principles indicated
above, the High Court’s judgment is clearly indefensible. By
making observations in an abstract and general manner it
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.
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court
is set aside. The appellant is on bail, bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.