Holding

An appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal only when the trial court’s consideration of evidence is tainted by manifest illegality or the judgment is perverse; a mere different appreciation of evidence is insufficient.

Summary

Four men were tried for murder and attempt to cause hurt under Sections 302, 34 and 323, 34 of the IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted them, finding the delay in reporting, lack of motive, and the unreliability of two eyewitnesses (PW2 and PW6) sufficient to raise doubt. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the acquittal on a fresh appraisal of the evidence, despite the trial court’s reasoning. The Supreme Court held that an appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal only if the trial court’s approach was vitiated by manifest illegality or the judgment was perverse, not merely because it reaches a different conclusion. Consequently, the High Court’s interference was deemed unwarranted and the Supreme Court restored the Sessions Court’s acquittal. The appeal by the appellants was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can set aside a Sessions Court acquittal solely on the basis of an independent reappraisal of the evidence.
What are the permissible grounds for interference with an order of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378, s. 386
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 323, s. 34

Subjects

appeal against acquittalmanifest illegalityperverse judgmentCriminal Procedure Codeevidence appraisalappellate jurisdictionSection 378Section 386IPC 302IPC 34IPC 323

Judgment

TOTA SINGH & ANR.
v. A
STATE OF PUNJAB

APRIL 1, 1987

[A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] B

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. ss. 378 and 386-Appeal against
order of acquittal-Interference by appellate court-Jurisdiction of-
No interference unless approach of trial court vitiated by some manifest
illegality. '

The appellants were tried by the Court of Sessions on charges c
under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and section 323 IPC
read with section 34 IPC, and the Sessions Judge acquitted the appel·
lants of all the charges laid against them on the grounds: (i) that there
was no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in reporting ttie
crime to the police; (ii) that there was also no adequate proof of any D
motive; (iii) that it was not a pre-planned attack;. and (iv) that the
testimony of P. W. 2 and P. W. 6 who were examined as eye-witnesses to
prove the occurrence, could not be safely accepted and acted upon as
true. In the absence of any independent corroboration of the testimony
given by them, since they had also been appearing as prosecution
witnesses in a large number of police cases. E

The High Court, however, in appeal by the respondent-State
~ade an independent reappraisal of the evidence and set aside the
acquittal, merely on the ground that as a result of such reappreciation it
was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by
the Sessions Judge. F

Allowing the appeal by the appellants, this Court,

HELD: I. The approach made by the High Court to a considera·
lion of the appeal was wholly vitiated by a manifest illegality inasmuch
as the High Court has acted in total disregard of the principles re· G
peatedly laid down by the Supreme Court delineating the restricted
grounds on which alone interference may he made by a court of appeal
with an order of acquittal passed by a lower Court. [7510]

The High Court in the instant case, has not found that the reasons
given by the Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of P. W. 2 and H

747
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A P. W. 6 were either unreasonable or perverse. [75IB]

2.1 The mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a
reappreciatioo of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance
with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court
B below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside
the acquittal. [751C]

2.2 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
C 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, there·
fore, liable to be characterised as perverse. [751D-E]

3. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence
0 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 if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the
court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. [751E]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E No. 225 of 1978.

From the Judgment and order dated 19.4.1978 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 1974.

F A.N. Mulla, Mrs. Pravawati, Mrs. Urmila Kapur and Ms. S.
J anani for the Appellants.

R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. After hearing Shri A.N. Mulla, Sr.
Advocate for appellants and Shri R.S. Sodhi, Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent and having carefully examined all aspects of
the case in the light of the submissions made at the Bar, we have
unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that this appeal has to be
H allowed.
TOTA SINGH v. PUNJAB (ERADI, J.l 749

The four appellants before us-Tota Singh, Dauli Singh, Mithu A
Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were tried by the Court of Sessions, Farid-
\
kot on charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and
Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After detailed considera-
tion of the entire evidence adduced in the case, the learned Sessions
Judge by his judgment dated May 30, 1974 acquitted the appellants of
all the charges laid against them. Against the said decision of the B
..l Sessions Judge, the State of Punjab preferred Criminal Appeal No.
\ 1106 of 1974 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A Division
·_Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated April 9, 1978 allowed
• ~ the State's appeal, set aside the order of the Sessions acquitting the
appellants and convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC read
with Section 34 IPC as well as under Section 323 IPC read with Section C
{ 34 IPC. On the first count all the appellants were sentenced to undt;rgo
~ rigorous imprisonment for life and on the second account they were
ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each with a
further direction that the substantive sentence of imprisonment in
respect of all the appellants shall run concurrently.
D
We do not propose to set out in extenso the facts of the case nor
to discuss in detail the oral and documentary evidence adduced. We
~ say this for the reason that we are fully satisfied that the approach
~ made by the High Court to a consideration of the appeal was wholly
vitiated by a manifest illegality inasmuch as the High Court has acted
in total disregard of the principles repeatedly laid down by this Court E
delineating the restricted grounds on which alone interference may be
made by a Court of appeal with an order of acquittal passed by a lower
)' Court.
I

y 1973 The occurrence that led to the prosecution took place on July 19,
at about 4 P .M. in village Bishmandi, Police Station Jaitu in F
District Faridkot. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased
Gurdev Singh accompained by A jmer Singh P. W. 2 and Malkiat Singh
P. W. 6 was going from the house of the Ajmer Singh to the house of
the deceased on that fateful day. While they were approaching the
house of one Moda Singh Jat, the four appellants, all carrying a
gandasa each, suddenly besieged them from behind the Ch_elianwali G
·-{ Street raising a "lalkara" proclaiming that they were going to take
their revenge for outraging the modesty of Malkiat Kaur and they
attacked the deacased as well as A jmer Singh and Malkiat Singh by
inflicting gandasa blows on them. It was alleged that this was a pre-
planned and concerted attack made by the appellants as a reappraisal
for an incident of alleged rape of one Malkiagt Kaur by A jmer Singh H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

(P.W. 2), Gurdev Singh (deceased) is said to have fallen down on the
A
spot as a result of the blows inflicted on him and P. Ws. 2 and 6 are said
to have suffered simple injuries due to the attack with gandasa.
According to the prosecution version on hearing the cries for help
raised by P.W. 2 and P.W. 6, Kaur Singh, son of deceased Gurdev
Singh came to the place of occurrence and thereupon all the four
B appellants ran away from the spot leaving P. W. 6 near Gurdev Singh,
who was lying on the ground in an injured condition. P.W. 2 is said to
have gone to the Sarpanch and the Panch of the village and informed
them about the incident. Thereafter he returned to the scene of occur-
rence and himself along with P.W. 6 are said to have put Gurdev Singh
on a bullock cart and got him admitted in the injured condition in the
""" .
hospital. P.W.2 and P.W.6 were also admitted in the same hospital.
c Gurdev Singh was subsequently transferred to the Christan Medical
College at Ludhiana, where he succumbed to his injuries on July 30,
1973.

The learned Sessions Judge after a careful analysis of all the facts
D and circumstances as disclosed by the evidence adduced in the case
came to the conclusion that the testimony of Ajmer Singh P.W. 2 and
Malkiat Singh P. W. 6 who were examined by the prosecution as eye-
witnesses to prove the occurrence could not be safely accepted and
acted upon as true. The trial Judge set out in his judgment detailed and
cogent grounds for arriving at the said conclusion. In his opinion there
E .was no proper explanation for the inordinate, delay in reporting the
crime to the police and there was also no adequate proof of any
motive. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the theory put forward by
the prosecution"that it was a pre-planned attack made by the appel-
lants with a view to avenge the alleged molestation of Malkiat Kaur by
A jmerthSintgh Pt. Wf. 2ttby kpobinttihng out th at tif such dhahd beebn reaAll~ the )(
F case, e arge o a ac y e appe 11 an s wou 1 ave een imer
Singh to whom only simple injuries were caused and not Ciurdev Singh
who had nothing to do with the alleged incident of molestation. The
learned Sessions Judge was inclined to accept the defence version that
the appellants being 'siris' had some trouble with P.W. 2 and P.W. 6
about the apportionment of 'batai' and this might have led to their
G false implication in the case. In the absence of any independent cor-
roboration of the testimony given by the two alleged eye-witnesses
(P.W. 2 and P.W. 6), the learned Sessions Judge who had seen them
giving evidence in the box was not impressed by their evidence spe-
cially having regard to the fact that both of them had been appearing as
prosecution witnesses in a large number of police cases. The testimony
H of P. W. 2 and P. W. 6 having been found to be not worthy of belief, the
TOTA SINGH v. PUNJAB [ERADI, J.) 751

learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants on both the charges A
levelled against them.

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 B
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 re- c
corded 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 D
evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the con-
clusion 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 E
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.

Tested in the light of the above principles, it must be held that
F"
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 judg-
ment 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.
G
M.L.A. Appeal allowed.