Source: https://www.shoneekapoor.com/bhaskar-ramappa-madar-ors-vs-state-of-karnataka/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:48:36+00:00

Document:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B, 306, 498A r/w Section 34 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 378(1), 378(3) — Dowry Death, Abetment of Suicide, Cruelty, Common Intention — Appeal against acquittal — Appreciation of evidence — PWs 1, 2 and 5 i.e. father, mother and brother of deceased do not speak of any dowry demand — From evidence of PW 1 it is clear that there was no ill-treatment by accused Nos. 1 to 3 to deceased and ill-treatment if any, was only by accused Nos. 4 to 6 — High Court’s reasoning that there was nothing to show that A-1 owned a truck is contrary to evidence on record — PW 1 has accepted position as noticed by Trial Court — There is no analysis of conclusions of Trial Court by High Court — Trial Court categorically held that so-called ill-treatment was not for bringing money and for not willing to part with her child in favour of accused No. 4 — Interference by High Court with order of acquittal is not correct — Impugned order of High Court set aside.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-State of Karnataka. Said Criminal appeal was filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, directed acquittal of the present appellants who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).
The accused No.1 is the husband of Ratnavva (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) who was given in marriage to the accused No.1 about 1½ years prior to her death and during their marriage, the accused No.1 was given 11 Tolas of gold and a cash of Rs.10,000/- along with other utensils. In spite of all this, the accused were ill-treating and harassing the deceased Ratnavva coercing her to bring more dowry and accordingly a cheque of Rs.10,000/- was given to the accused No.1 by the mother of the deceased. But in spite of that the accused did not stop the ill-treatment, and harassment to the deceased Ratnavva. On account of constant harassment and ill-treatment to the deceased, they made the life of the deceased a miserable one which abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, the accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law and the accused No. 6 is the brother-in-law of the deceased.
On the basis of information lodged, investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge-sheet was filed. As accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined at the trial PWs 1 to 18 and got marked in evidence Ex. P1 to P15 and Mos 1 to 12. Investigation was undertaken.
The trial Court held that the Investigating Officer should not have proceeded with the investigation as he was the complainant and on that ground held the prosecution version to be tainted. It also found that the evidence of the witnesses did not inspire confidence.
Acquittal was challenged before the High Court, which on the other hand held that the conclusions of the trial Court are erroneous.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court nowhere recorded a finding that the conclusions of the trial Court were either perverse or not supported by reasons.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
5. So far as the desirability of the complainant undertaking investigation is concerned there is no legal bar. The decisions of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1976 (1) SCC 15 at para 18 and Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 (11) SCC 709 at para 4 have to be confined to the facts of the said cases. Merely because the complainant conducted the investigation, that would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution version to hold that the same makes the prosecution version vulnerable. The matter has to be decided on case to case basis without any universal generalization.
6. On the facts of the present case A-1 went to lodge the report. The SI (PW-17) registered the case and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed by D.S.P.
“378. Appeal in case of acquittal.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (5), the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(6) If, in any case, the application under Sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2).
8. Whereas Sections 379-380 cover special cases of appeals, other Sections lay down procedure to be followed by Appellate Courts.
9. It may be stated that more or less similar provisions were found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as “the old Code”) which came up for consideration before various High Courts, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as also before this Court. Since in the present appeal, we have been called upon to decide the ambit and scope of the power of an Appellate Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal, we have confined ourselves to one aspect only i.e. an appeal against an order of acquittal.
10. Bare reading of Section 378 of the present Code (appeal in case of acquittal) quoted above, makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the Legislature on the powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal.
11. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a 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 should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent Court of Law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
12. Though the above principles are well established, a different note was struck in several decisions by various High Courts and even by this Court. It is, therefore, appropriate if we consider some of the leading decisions on the point.
13. The first important decision was rendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. R. Emperor, (1934) 61 IA 398). In Sheo Swarup the accused were acquitted by the trial Court and the local Government directed the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the old Code (similar to Section 378 of the present Code). At the time of hearing of appeal before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused that in an appeal from an order of acquittal, it was not open to the Appellate Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Judge unless such findings could not have been reached by him had there not been some perversity or incompetence on his part. The High Court, however, declined to accept the said view. It held that no condition was imposed on the High Court in such appeal. It accordingly reviewed all the evidence in the case and having formed an opinion of its weight and reliability different from that of the trial Judge, recorded an order of conviction. A petition was presented to His Majesty in Council for leave to appeal on the ground that conflicting views had been expressed by the High Courts in different parts of India upon the question whether in an appeal from an order of acquittal, an Appellate Court had the power to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial Judge. Their Lordships thought it fit to clarify the legal position and accordingly upon the “humble advice of Their Lordships”, leave was granted by His Majesty. The case was, thereafter, argued. The Committee considered the scheme and interpreting Section 417 of the Code (old Code) observed that there was no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction on the High Court in exercise of powers as an Appellate Tribunal. The Code also made no distinction as regards powers of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction. Though several authorities were cited revealing different views by the High Courts dealing with an appeal from an order of acquittal, the Committee did not think it proper to discuss all the cases.
17. In Nur Mohd. v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 151, the Committee reiterated the above view in Sheo Swarup (supra) and held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has full powers to review and to reverse acquittal.
18. So far as this Court is concerned, probably the first decision on the point was Prandas v. State, AIR 1954 SC 36 (though the case was decided on 14.3.1950, it was reported only in 1954). In that case, the accused was acquitted by the trial Court. The Provincial Government preferred an appeal which was allowed and the accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323, IPC. The High Court, for convicting the accused, placed reliance on certain eye-witnesses.
20. In Surajpal Singh v. State, 1952 SCR 193, a two-Judge Bench observed that it was well established that in an appeal under Section 417 of the (old) Code, the High Court had full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded. But it was equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused was further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court, and the findings of the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence could be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.
21. In Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418, the accused was acquitted by the trial Court but was convicted by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. The aggrieved accused approached this Court. It was contended by him that there were “no compelling reasons” for setting aside the order of acquittal and due and proper weight had not been given by the High Court to the opinion of the trial Court as regards the credibility of witnesses seen and examined. It was also commented that the High Court committed an error of law in observing that “when a strong ‘prima facie’ case is made out against an accused person it is his duty to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and he cannot take shelter behind the presumption of innocence and cannot state that the law entitles him to keep his lips sealed”.
“In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the Appellate Court in an appeal under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code came to the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that order.
It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence.
“21. 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 reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not”.
(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.
38. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.
39. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, 1988 (4) SCC 302.
40. The above position was highlighted in Krishnan and Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police, IV (2003) SLT 613=III (2003) CCR 53 (SC)=2003 (7) SCC 56 and Valson and Anr. v. State of Kerala, IV (2008) DLT (CRL.) 173 (SC)=IV (2008) CCR 218 (SC)=Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2001 disposed of on August 1, 2008.
41. In the instant case the trial Court categorically found that the so called ill- treatment was for not bringing money and also for not willing to part with her child in favour of accused No. 4. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that the appellants were guilty of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC.
42. The evidence of PW-2, the wife of PW-1 and the mother of the deceased is of great significance. She stated that accused persons were abusing, beating her daughter and pulling her hairs and they were not giving proper food to her. She advised her daughter to adjust as this witness has got five more daughters. She further stated that they had given Rs.10,000/- in cash out of the income of rent received by her and she gave it to accused No. l through cheque and still accused persons did not stop ill-treatment and again demanded money. They demanded Rs.15,000/- and this witness was unable to pay the same. So far the cheque is concerned, the cheque is marked at Ex. P-4, which is a Xerox copy and the Manager of the Bank is examined in support of the case as PW-12. The witness PW-12 deposed that the cheque has been encashed on 24.4.1989 at Syndicate Bank, Mundgor. The accused persons also admitted of having taken the cheque for Rs. 10,000/- but their defence is that accused No.1 was plying a truck and the truck met with accident which required heavy repairs and so PW-2 has given a cheque for repairs of said truck and not as dowry. To show that A-1 was owning a truck for which he has produced the Xerox of R.C. Book which shows the name of A-1 as per the owner of the truck bearing No. MYE 5577. To show that the said truck met with an accident accused produced the copy of extract of Register No. III Criminal from the Court of J.M.F.C., Khanapur which shows that the truck met with accident on 26.12.1988 and as per the date of registration and F. I. R. and Register, the case was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC, on the basis of which, the accused pleaded guilty for the said offences and the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 800/- respectively. From the above said document prima facie it is clear that A-1 was having the truck bearing No.MYE 5577 which met with an accident on 26.12.1988 within the jurisdiction of Khanapur Court and defence of the accused persons appears to be more probable. At least it creates doubt regarding the case of prosecution that the cheque for Rs. 10 000/- was given towards the demand of dowry. PW-1 admitted in the cross-examination that accused No. 2 is the native of Goshanatti in Khanapur Tal, and he has not got house and land at Goshanatti. But she denied that accused No. 2 is cultivating lands personally. But she admitted that she does not know who is cultivating the land of accused No 1. She also denied that accused Nos. 3 to 6 were residing at Goshanatti. She had admitted that accused No. 1 was running the truck. She admitted that her daughter had come for delivery to her house and she stayed for seven months with them and after delivery after about three months, she went to her husband’s house. She denied that they had paid the cheque for repairs of the said truck which met with an accident.
43. PW-1’s evidence is also significant. He stated his daughter and son-in-law-accused No. l came to his house and his daughter told that there is no ill-treatment by her husband but stated that there is ill-treatment by accused Nos. 4 to 6 and so, she does not want to go back and stayed there. From this evidence of PW- 1, it is clear that there was no ill-treatment by accused Nos. 1 to 3 to the deceased Ratnavva and ill-treatment if any, was only by accused Nos. 4 to 6. In spite of the same, PW-1 stated that on the next day, his daughter and accused No. l went to their house. Another version given by this witness is that accused No.4-Geeta had no issues and she was insisting the deceased Ratnavva to give her son in adoption to her, to which she refused and so accused No.4 started ill-treating her. This version is unbelievable, simply because, accused No. 4 has no issues, it does not mean that she will insist her brother or her brother’s wife to give their only son in adoption to her. Even assuming that she has demanded so, it does not mean that is demand of dowry so as to attract the provisions of Section 498(A), IPC.
44. PWs 1, 2 and 5 i.e. father, mother and brother of the deceased do not speak of any dowry demand. The High Court’s reasoning that there was nothing to show that A-1 owned a truck is contrary to the evidence on record. PW-1 has accepted the position as noticed by the trial Court. There is no analysis of the conclusions of the trial Court by the High Court.
45. Above being the position, the interference by the High Court with the order of acquittal is not correct. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The bail bonds executed pursuant to this Court’s Court dated 22.3.2002 shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.