SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. Ratheesh
Vs
State of Kerala
Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 1999
(Arijit Pasayat and L. S. Panta, JJ)
06.07.2006
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:
2. On 23.12.1994 at 11.15 a.m. the accused stabbed deceased to death at the
private bus stand, Kanhangad. On Ext.P-1 complaint of H.R. Ashokan (P.W.I) and
V.K. Raghavan (P.W. 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 P.W.I and another, from whom MO1 dagger and MO2 sheath
were seized under Ext.P-2 mahazar, which was attested by K. Kanna (P.W.4), who
was allegedly an eye witness. P.W. 9 also visited the scene of incident where
P.W.4 gave the details. P. Habib Rahiman (P.W. 10), 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 (P.W.8), Asst. Surgeon,
District Hospital, Kanhangad, conducted the postmortem and he set out his
findings in Ext.P-8 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 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 (P.W. 2) and others never let him live in peace, that on
19.8.1994 they 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 (P.W.3) 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 P.W.2 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. D-l to 3 were marked, but no witness was examined in defence.
3. The trial court after consideration of the evidence brought on record came
to hold that so far as the eye witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 were concerned, there
was great deal of discrepancy in their version about the incident. P.W..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 P.W.I did not inspire confidence. The
trial court observed that on a conjoint reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and
3 it is clear that their version improbablised the scenario described by the
prosecution. The conduct of P.W.3 was also indicated to be highly suspicious.
It was further noted that a friend of P.W.3, 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 P.Ws. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 others v. State of
Madhya Pradesh[2002 (2) Supreme 567 = 2002 (1) ALT 257 (SC).]. 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 another v. State of
Maharashtra , Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat[1996 (4) Supreme
167], Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and
others, , State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh
and another.
7. 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 no1 have been set aside in the manner as done,
8. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The
appellant is on bail, bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
J