Supreme Court: Whether appellate court must hear accused on the point of sentence while convicting him after setting aside order of his acquittal?

It can be seen from Section 386(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, that where in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the court hearing the appeal finds the Accused guilty it is required to pass a sentence on him according to law. {Para 13}

14. In Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets   MANU/SC/8414/2008 : 2008:INSC:1437, this Court interpreting Section 386(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, while holding that appellate court ought not, after recording conviction, remit the matter to the trial court and that the appellate court is obligated to impose an appropriate sentence, held as under:

26. This Court has also noticed a strange and very disturbing feature of the case. The High Court, after convicting the Appellant Under Section 138 of the Act, remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for passing appropriate order of sentence. This course, adopted by the learned Single Judge, is unknown to law. The learned Single Judge was hearing an appeal from an order of acquittal. The powers of the appellate court, in an appeal from an order of acquittal, are enumerated in Section 386(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Those powers do not contemplate that an appellate court, after recording conviction, can remit the matter to the trial court for passing appropriate order of sentence. The judicial function of imposing appropriate sentence can be performed only by the appellate court when it reverses the order of acquittal and not by any other court. Having regard to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 this Court is of the view that after finding the Appellant guilty Under Section 138 of the Act, the judicial discretion of imposing appropriate sentence could not have been abdicated by the learned Single Judge in favour of the learned Magistrate. Having found the Appellant guilty Under Section 138 of the Act it was the bounden duty of the High Court to impose appropriate sentence commensurate with the facts of the case. Therefore, we do not approve or accept the procedure adopted by the High Court. Be that as it may, in this case, we have found that reversal of acquittal itself was not justified.

[Emphasis supplied]

15. Not only should the appellate court not remand the matter to the trial court only for the purpose of imposing a sentence, after it finds Accused guilty, it has a bounden duty to hear and impose an appropriate sentence.

16. The appellate court which will include the High Court, in a given scenario, while recording a conviction after reversing the acquittal, should adjourn the matter to a suitable date, hear the convicts, and impose an appropriate sentence itself.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019

Decided On: 08.10.2026

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1143/2026,2026 INSC 1099.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What should be approach of appellate court while deciding appeal against acquittal?

 Since the impugned judgment is one of reversal of acquittal, the broad principles to be borne in mind by an appellate Court when it considers an appeal from an order of acquittal are required to be noted. In this regard, we may refer to the observations in paragraph 20 of the judgment in Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Nambudiri (supra) which reads as under: {Para 11}

20. It cannot be disputed that the High Court, even though it was hearing an appeal from an order of acquittal, had full powers to review the entire evidence on the record and reach its own conclusion that the acquittal order should be set aside. But as the Privy Council pointed out in --'Sheoswarup v. Emperor', in exercising these powers the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as: (1) the views of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses; (2) presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he had been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the Accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019

Decided On: 08.10.2026

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1143/2026,2026 INSC 1099.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Procedural Violation Will Not Vitiate Seizure But Can Affect Evidentiary Value

It is true that non-compliance of the requirements of Section 100 of the Code by itself would not vitiate a seizure and the same would be an irregularity in the investigation. However, when this factor is considered cumulatively with other factors that contribute to doubting the prosecution case, the same would weigh in favour of the Appellant, especially in an appeal against acquittal. In this regard, we may refer to two decisions of this Court. In Sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh   MANU/SC/0118/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 411, it was held as under:

In respect of the search of the room occupied by the Appellant and the recovery of the bloodstained shirt and bloodstained pants aforesaid it was necessary to have at least two search witnesses as required by Section 103. Assuming that the two rickshaw-wallahs who actually witnessed the search as found by the Courts below were not respectable inhabitants of the locality, that circumstance would not invalidate the search. It would only affect the weight of the evidence in support of the search and the recovery. Hence at the highest the irregularity in the search and the recovery in so far as the terms of Section 103 had not been fully complied with would not affect the legality of the proceedings. It only affected the weight of evidence which is a matter for courts of fact and this Court would not ordinarily go behind the findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the courts below.

Similarly, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh and Ors.   MANU/SC/0436/1994 : 1994:INSC:96, this Court held as under:

At this juncture we may also dispose of one of the contentions that failure to comply with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of search and seizure even upto that stage would also vitiate the trial. This aspect has been considered in a number of cases and it has been held that the violation of the provisions particularly that of Sections 100, 102, 103 or 165 Code of Criminal Procedure strictly per se does not vitiate the prosecution case. If there is such violation, what the courts have to see is whether any prejudice was caused to the Accused and in appreciating the evidence and other relevant factors, the courts should bear in mind that there was such a violation and from that point of view evaluate the evidence on record.

In the light of the aforesaid position, weightage to be given to the articles stated to be seized from the house of the Appellant would have to be cumulatively assessed with the other material on record. {Para 19}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1432 of 2019

Decided On: 08.10.2026

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1143/2026,2026 INSC 1099.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The doctor's admission that the victim's injuries could have been caused by falling on the road, combined with the existing enmity between the parties, constitutes grounds for acquittal

It is observed that the Trial Court had considered the answers given by P.W. 7 Dr. Joshi, during his cross-examination that the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 and 2 could have been possible by fall on the road and also fall on the hard and sharp object. 

This is more so in the light of the admitted position that there was a civil dispute between the three respondents on one side and P.W. 1 and 2 and their family members on the other side. This dispute was over the immovable landed property and which was going on for more than 7 to 8 years prior to the incident. It is also an admitted position that there was a complaint lodged by the respondents accused against the relatives of the First Informant. Pointing out this factual position and reasonable doubt was entertained by the Trial Court as to possibility of false involvement of the respondents in the offence charged. Considering the substantive evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Joshi and mainly considering hostility shown of P.W. 5 as to alleged recovery from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and considering that the independent witness Appasaheb Waghmare is not examined, it must be said that the Trial Court had rightly came to the conclusion as to non establishment of the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2004

Decided On: 27.10.2014

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Uttam Dashrath Tandale and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.R. Joshi, J.

Citation: 2015 ALLMR (Cri) 1925,MANU/MH/2847/2014

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can acquit accused if complainant was of criminal background?

 The High Court also accepted the defence version made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and recorded the findings that the possibility of Phenolphthalein powder appearing on the hands of the Respondent-accused when he shook hands with the complainant cannot be ruled out. The High Court further took note of various subsequent developments that certain complaints were filed against him by the CBI having disproportionate assets. The complainant Naresh Kumar Kapoor was a man having a criminal background. He was involved in a murder case as well as in a case of sale of shares in bogus names. The High Court further observed that in case two views are possible, the view favouring the accused has to be given preference, thus gave the benefit of doubt to the Respondent accused and acquitted him.{Para 9}

10. Undoubtedly, the reasoning given by the High Court does not deserve to be accepted for the reason that even if the complainant had a criminal background, he can still be forced by the officer of the Income Tax Department to pay illegal gratification for not reopening the assessment of a particular year. The subsequent cases against the Respondent-accused for having disproportionate assets cannot be co-related with the incident of trap case. The incident in which the Respondent had been arrested for taking illegal gratification has to be examined on its own merit. 

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate prosecution case if genesis of the case is not disclosed correctly?

The case of the complainant was that on 1.6.1994 he went to the house of the Respondent-accused and after bargaining, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the same day as part payment of the illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/-. He immediately went alongwith Raj Kumar Sharma (PW. 3), the shadow witness to Harish Kumar (PW. 12), DCP and the plan for trap was prepared and the trap was laid. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2), the Executive Magistrate has categorically stated that he had been directed by the Deputy Commissioner in writing on 31.5.1994 to join the trap party on 1.6.1994. Therefore, it is evident that in case the complainant himself had gone to Harish Kumar (PW. 12) for having a trap on 1.6.1994, the question of receiving a direction from the Deputy Commissioner on 31.5.1994 could not arise. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2) is a witness only of recovery and not of accepting the bribe money. This statement alone made it evident that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the case correctly.

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368.

Red full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court lays down guidelines for appreciating prosecution case in the case of prevention of Corruption Act

The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. {Para 7}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010

Decided On: 12.08.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are parameters for deciding appeal against acquittal?

 Appeal against Acquittal:

22. It is a well-established principle of law, consistently re-iterated and followed by this Court is that while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, an appellate court must consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. Even though the appellate court is entitled to consider, whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had placed the burden of proof incorrectly or failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law; the appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. The trial court which has the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses is the best judge of the credibility of the witnesses.

23. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration.

The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused, and further, that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the Trial Court in a casual or cavalier manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference.

24. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is 'against the weight of evidence', or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See: Balak Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0410/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 2165; Shailendra Pratap and Anr. v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0007/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 1104; Budh Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/8163/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 2500; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his L.Rs. and Ors.   MANU/SC/7538/2008 : AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu and Anr. v. State   MANU/SC/1709/2009 : (2009) 10 SCC 206; Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh   MANU/SC/0070/2010 : (2010) 2 SCC 445); and Babu v. State of Kerala   MANU/SC/0580/2010 : (2010) 9 SCC 189).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2004

Decided On: 11.11.2010

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2010 INSC 770,2011 ALLMR 288 (SC),MANU/SC/0947/2010.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

What is difference between standard of proof in deciding criminal appeal against acquittal and conviction?

 In criminal law, appellate courts apply distinct standards when deciding appeals against conviction versus appeals against acquittal, primarily because an acquittal reinforces the fundamental presumption of innocence. While both appeals allow for a review of evidence, an appeal against acquittal faces a higher threshold for interference compared to a standard appeal against conviction. 

Here is the detailed difference:

1. Appeal Against Conviction 

Print Page

Supreme Court: What parameters Appellate court should follow while deciding appeal against acquittal?

 From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, 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. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeals against an order of acquittal:

(a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence on record;

(c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.’

(d) the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating 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;

(e) 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

(f) 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. {Para 29}

30. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles and the law laid down by this Court, if the entire evidence as well as the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are examined, we are of the view that the High Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect while dealing with the acquittal appeals.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and 2542-2543 of 2024

Decided On: 16.01.2026

Tulasareddi and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Pancholi and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: V.M. Pancholi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0072/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Disclosure Statements U/S. 27 Evidence Act Alone is Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete

(viii) The prosecution case mainly rested upon the deposition given by PW-5 so-called eye-witness as well as on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive, last seen theory, recovery, and conduct of the Accused were sought to be relied upon to establish the chain of circumstances.

(ix) Upon an exhaustive appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by judgment dated 30.03.2019, acquitted all the Accused of all charges. The Trial Court recorded findings that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the Accused. The alleged motive was held to be weak and speculative; the theory of conspiracy was found to be unsubstantiated; and crucial links such as last seen together and recovery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

23. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have mainly placed reliance upon confessional statements of the Accused and, thereafter, the discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the canal. We are of the view that simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the Accused, and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the Accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the Accused had committed the alleged offences. We are of the further view that the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view based upon the evidence led by the prosecution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and 2542-2543 of 2024

Decided On: 16.01.2026

Tulasareddi and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Pancholi and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: V.M. Pancholi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0072/2026.

Print Page

Whether the appellate court can extend the benefit of acquittal to non appealing convict?

If 4 accused are convicted, but only one accused prefer appeal.  If appeal is allowed, can the 3 accused get benefit and whether they can be also acquitted

 Under Indian criminal law, whether the three accused who did not file appeals can benefit from the successful appeal of the fourth accused depends on several key factors and legal principles established by the Supreme Court and High Courts.

General Principle: Benefit of Acquittal to Co-Accused

Print Page

Supreme Court Recognizes Complainant as Victim, Grants Unconditional Appeal Right in Cheque Bounce Acquittals

 Background

In a significant judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed a crucial legal question: Can a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, appeal an acquittal order as a "victim" under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), without seeking special leave under Section 378(4) of the CrPC? This issue arose in the case of M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran & Others, where the appellant, a financial firm, sought to challenge the acquittal of borrowers who had defaulted on multiple loans and whose cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Factual Matrix

Print Page

Supreme Court: Complainant In S.138 NI Act Case Can File Appeal Against Acquittal As 'Victim' Under S.372 Proviso CrPC

A person who is a complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC who complains about the offence committed by a person who is charged as an accused under Section 138 of the Act, thus has the right to prefer an appeal as a victim under the proviso to  Section 372 of the CrPC.

10. As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the CrPC.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025

M/s. CELESTIUM FINANCIAL  Vs  A. GNANASEKARAN ETC. 

Citation:  2025 INSC 804.

Dated: APRIL 08, 2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstance the court can release convict on personal bond after acquittal in appeal?

 It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable

to secure the benefit of bail order for his inability to furnish

local surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution for the person, who continues to be

detained despite a bail order in his favour. {Para 6}

7. Having considered the circumstances here, we deem it

appropriate to say that the petitioner be released on bail on his

personal bond without insisting on local surety, to ensure

compliance with this Court’s bail order dated 03.05.2024.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3363/2024

RAMCHANDRA THANGAPPAN AACHARI  Vs

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

Date : 18-09-2024

 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

Print Page

Rajasthan HC: Complainant in Case Under S 138 of NI Act is victim as per s 2(y) of BNSS, he can file appeal against acquittal before Sessions Court

This application for grant of leave to file appeal has been filed by complainant-Vikram Manshani against the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.3108/2016, where-underthe sole respondent has been acquitted of the charge under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

It is not disputed that the cheque was issued in favour of the

applicant. Therefore, the applicant was victim of the crime as

defined under Section 2(y) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which reads as follows :

Section 2(y) “Victim” means a person who has

suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of

the act or omission of the accused person and

includes the guardian or legal heir of such

victim.”

If such complainant, is not a victim as defined above then,

he would be required to prefer leave application before the High

Court for preferring appeal against acquittal. However, if the

complainant is a victim of the crime, he/she shall have right

under Proviso to Section 413 BNSS to prefer appeal against

acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate

compensation.

The appellant would be at liberty to present an appeal against acquittal before concerned Sessions Judge within a period of 15 days from the date of this order.

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JODHPUR

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 384/2024

Vikram Manshani Vs Praveen Sharma

Coram:  MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Dated: 06/08/2024.

Print Page

What is the duty of the appellate court while deciding appeal against acquittal?

 We have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the evidence as well as the judgments of the two courts below. From the judgment of the trial court, we notice that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for not accepting the evidence led on behalf of the respondent and on that basis he came to the conclusion that the complainant/respondent has not established his case. While the High Court on reappreciation of the evidence, has come to a different conclusion on entirely new grounds without considering the material considered by the trial court and as held above, convicted the appellant. While doing so, the High Court had lost sight of the fact that it was sitting as an appellate court against a judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, therefore, there was an obligation on the part of the High Court to come to a definite conclusion that the findings of the trial court are either perverse or the same are contrary to material on record because the High Court could not have substituted its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible based on material on record. It was the duty of the High Court to have first come to the conclusion that the conclusions arrived at by the trial court for good reasons are either unreasonable or at stated above, contrary to the material on record. In the absence of any such finding in our opinion, the High Court was in error in taking a contra view merely because another view was possible on the material on record. {Para 5}

6. This Court in a number of cases has held that though the appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, still while exercising such an appellate power in a case of acquittal, the appellate court, should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the courts below in support of its order of acquittal, it must express its reasons in the judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. In those line of cases this Court has also held that the appellate court must also bear in mind the fact that the trial court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal, and in such cases if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1748 of 1996

Decided On: 01.11.2002

C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.

Author: N. Santosh Hegde, J.

Citation: AIR 2003 SC 182, MANU/SC/0968/2002.

Print Page

What are limitations on the power of appellate court while deciding appeal against acquittal?

The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside the acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

This Court has repeatedly pointed out that the mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal.

The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. {Para 6}

7. Tested in the light of the above principles, it must be held that the interference made in the present case by the High Court with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge was wholly unwarranted. We accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants of all the charges framed against them.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1978

Decided On: 01.04.1987

Tota Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Sen and V. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.

Author: V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.

Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1083,MANU/SC/0320/1987.

Print Page

Supreme Court Reiterates Principles To Be Adhered By Appellate Court While Reversing Acquittal

 From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: {Para 42}

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the Accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara and Ors. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/1058/2023 : 2023:INSC:858 : (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal Under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as follows:

8.1. The acquittal of the Accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating 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;

8.4. 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

8.5. 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.

39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in favour of the Accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the Accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010

Decided On: 19.04.2024

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0329/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: To Prove S.27 Evidence Act Statement, Investigating Officer Must Narrate What Accused Stated; Merely Exhibiting Memorandum Not Enough

Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/1324/2022 : 2022:INSC:1075, wherein this Court held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement. {Para 65}

66. If we peruse the extracted part of the evidence of the Investigating Officer(PW-27)(reproduced supra), in the backdrop of the above exposition of law laid down by this Court, the interrogation memos of the Accused A-2(Exhibit P-15) and A-1 (Exhibit P-16), it is clear that the Investigating Officer(PW-27) gave no description at all of the conversation which had transpired between himself and the Accused which was recorded in the disclosure statements. Thus, these disclosure statements cannot be read in evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non est in the eyes of law.

67. The Investigating Officer(PW-27) also stated that in furtherance of the voluntary statements of Accused(A-1 and A-2), he recovered and seized two axes and one koyta produced by A-1 in the field of Ansari and one jambiya produced by A-2. The Investigating Officer(PW-27) nowhere stated in his deposition that the disclosure statement of the Accused resulted into the discovery of these weapons pursuant to being pointed out by the Accused.

68. The Investigating Officer(PW-27) further stated that he arrested Accused A-3, recorded his voluntary statement and seized two sickles. However, neither the so called voluntary statement nor the seizure memo were proved by the Investigating Officer(PW-27) in his evidence.

69. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that neither the disclosure memos were proved in accordance with law nor the recovery of the weapons from open spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied upon by the High Court as incriminating material so as to reverse the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010

Decided On: 19.04.2024

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0329/2024.

Print Page