Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Madathil Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2016
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, Adarsh Kumar Goel
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2010
MADATHIL NARAYANAN & ORS. ……APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ……RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The present criminal appeal arises from of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 1768 of 2005 dated 05.11.2009, wherein the High Court reversed the judgment and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad-Hoc) No. II, Manjeri dated 02.06.2005 acquitting the accused-appellants. The High Court set aside the same and convicted and sentenced the appellants. The appellants have questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, urging various legal grounds.
Our attention was drawn to the judgment and orders passed by the both the High Court and the Trial Court by the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties Signature Not Verified in justification of their respective submissions. Mr. Digitally signed by RASHI GUPTA Date: 2016.07.30 13:42:27 IST Reason: Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants invited our attention to the 2 findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment and submits that High Court held that the findings and reasons recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous in law and accordingly in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, re-appreciated the evidence on record and came to a different conclusion than the Trial Court. It is submitted that the same is contrary to the factual and legal evidence on record and therefore, the High Court has erred in law in reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the charges leveled against the appellants as the same is contrary to the principles of law laid down by various judgments of this Court.
The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further contends that the High Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence on record has reversed the finding of acquittal which is not correct, for the reason that the evidence of PW-2, who was also severely injured in the incident cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants. It is submitted that though PW-2 was admitted to the hospital on the night of the incident along with the deceased, he did not disclose the names of the accused persons who were involved in 3 the commission of the offence to the Investigation Officer. It is further submitted that the statement of PW-2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigation Officer after 10 days from his discharge from the hospital, by which time, the accused persons had already been apprehended.
It is further submitted that apart from PW-2, PW-3 is another eyewitness to the occurrence according to the prosecution, who had accompanied the deceased to the hospital. He had told the doctor, who recorded the injuries in the post-mortem certificate of the deceased and the injuries certificate of PW-2 that the injuries were caused to the deceased by some unknown persons. The evidence of the said witness did not inspire confidence in the mind of Sessions Judge to record the finding of guilt on the charges leveled against the appellants. It is submitted that the Trial Court, being the original Court of appreciation of evidence on record, found fault with the case of the prosecution and did not accept the same and held that the charges are not proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that this finding of fact has erroneously been reversed by the High Court, though 4 there is no substantive and legal evidence on record to prove the charges leveled against the appellants.
It is submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, injured eyewitnesses of the occurrence, whose evidence was not believed by the Trial Court, the High Court has erred in placing reliance on the very same evidence and reversing the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, which approach is wholly erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The learned senior counsel has thus, prayed for setting aside the same and restoring the judgment of acquittal of the appellants passed by the Trial Court.
On the other hand, Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, wife of the deceased has sought to justify the correctness of finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The learned senior counsel has elaborately taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses produced before the Trial Court and contended that High Court is justified in reversing the finding of acquittal of the appellants recorded by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the High Court 5 has properly re-appreciated the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, along with the doctor’s evidence, the evidence of fingerprint expert, the Forensic Science Laboratory Reports and other evidence and concluded that the Trial Court has erroneously arrived at the conclusion of recording the finding of acquittal of the appellants. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Krishna Pal and Anr. v. State of U.P.1 in support of the proposition of law that when there is evidence of injured eyewitness and other witnesses, the same cannot be ignored while recording the findings on the charge against the accused. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ambika Prasad & Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration)2. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Brahm Swaroop & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3 in support of the contention that the evidence of the injured witness is reliable by itself. It is contended that the same has not been considered by the 1 (1996) 7 SCC 194 2 (2000) 2 SCC 646 3 (2011) 6 SCC 288 6 Trial Court while recording its finding on the charges against the appellants. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submits that the finding of reversal of the acquittal by the High Court is justified, as it has assigned valid and cogent reasons. The learned senior counsel submits that therefore, this not a fit case for this Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the finding of convictions and sentence awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
It is a well settled principle of law that if two views are plausible, the view which goes in favour of acquittal has to be adopted. This legal principle has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Arulvelu & Anr. v. State rep. by the Public Prosecutor & Anr.4 In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh & Ors.v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) & Anr.5, this Court has held that in the absence of any manifest 4 2009 (4) RCR Crl. 638 5 (2002) 6 SCC 650 7 illegality perversity or miscarriage of justice, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court may not be interfered by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The aforesaid view has further been reiterated by this Court in the following two cases viz. Rathinam @ Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.6 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra7.
This Court in the case of Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P.8 has recognized the principle that presumption of innocence is a human right and observed that the benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram9, this Court observed that while considering the appeal against the acquittal where the case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other 6 (2011) 11 SCC 140 7 ((2010) 13 SCC 657 8 (2004) 10 SCC 699 9 (2003) 8 SCC 180 8 person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused can be drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such so as to negative the possibility of the innocence of the accused and bring home the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. If the evidence relied upon is reasonable capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Thus, if the Trial Court takes the view that the accused deserves to be acquitted on the basis of the evidence on record, the same cannot be reversed unless and until it is found that the same is vitiated on account on some gross perversity and erroneous appreciation of evidence on record.
We have gone through the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court which was the first court to appreciate the evidence. Non-disclosure of the names of the accused persons by the PW-2 and disclosure of the names after 10 days from the date of occurrence created suspicion in the mind of the Trial Court Judge and therefore, the same have not been relied upon. Our attention was drawn to the injuries certificate 9 of PW-2 by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. PW-3 has made a categorical statement to the Doctor that injuries were caused to the deceased and PW-2 by some unknown persons. So the evidence of PW-3 cannot be relied upon to accept the case of the prosecution. Therefore, evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 has not been rightly accepted by the Trial Court.
Our attention was drawn by Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2-wife of the deceased, to the report of the fingerprint expert to show that the fingerprints of the appellants were found on the glass of the auto-rickshaw in which the deceased and PW-2 were traveling at the time of the incident. According to the Report, it was found that the fingerprints of A-1 Madathil Narayanan were matching to the fingerprints on the glass of the auto-rickshaw. This evidence was considered by the Trial Court and not accepted. The Trial Court disbelieved the same as the fingerprint expert, PW-19 had stated in his cross examination that “it is not recorded in Ex. P-11 that 11 chance print from auto-rickshaw were taken”. It was thus, held that the 10 fact of the chance print having in fact, being recovered from the auto-rickshaw could not be believed. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further places strong reliance on the FSL report to contend that there were human blood stains on the weapons which were used in committing offence. They were recovered at the residence of A-1. On account of the weapons being embedded in the soil DNA analysis of the blood stains could not be done to find out whether the blood stains were that of the deceased. In this regard also, the Trial Court on proper appreciation recorded the evidence and held the same is not legal evidence to connect the appellants to the crime to hold that they are guilty of the offence for which they are charged. It was held that the blood was human blood but the quantity was too little to be able to carry out grouping with the blood of the deceased.
We have carefully gone through the said findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge and also considered the reversal of the said finding of the aforesaid reports by the High Court. In our considered view, the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and arrived at right 11 conclusion and taken the plausible view that it will not be proper to convict the appellants based on the said evidence as the same is not reliable to hold them guilty of the charges leveled against them. Therefore, reversing the finding of acquittal by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is not just and valid. For the foregoing reasons, the reversal of the finding of acquittal by the High Court is not correct.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is restored. The appellants are on bail. Since we have allowed the appeal, the appellants are discharged from their bail bonds.
………………………………………………………J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ………………………………………………………J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) NEW DELHI, JULY 21, 2016 12 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 352/2010 MADATHIL NARAYANAN & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR Respondent(s) (With application(s) for permission to file additional documents and exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date : 21/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Appellant(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.
M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abdul Latheef M. P., Adv.
Mr. Mohan Kumar B. R., Adv.
Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Jishnu M. L., Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv.
Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
(RASHI GUPTA) (SUMAN JAIN)
SR. P.A. COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]