SUPREME COURT RESTORES THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED, EMPHASIZING THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CASES OF ACQUITTAL

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Aravind Kumar passed a Judgment dated 18-09-2024 in the matter of Ramesh and another Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012 and observed the Trial Court had rightly identified discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the delay in recording statements, and the absence of independent witnesses, all of which cast doubt on the Prosecution’s case. Further, the High Court failed to meet the legal standards required to overturn an acquittal, particularly the need for clear and compelling reasons.

FACTS:

1) That the aforesaid Appeal was filed before the Apex Court by one, Ramesh and another (Appellants / Accused) against the State of Karnataka (Respondent), that challenged the decision dated 29.03.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (High Court) whereby, the High Court reversed the acquittal Judgment dated 03.05.2006 passed by the Trial Court and held all five accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143 (Punishment for members of unlawful assembly), 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) and 302 (Punishment for murder) read with 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) Indian Penal Code 1869 (IPC).

2) The Police lodged an FIR against one, Ramesh and another individual in FIR No. 26 of 2005, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by Bannerghatta Police Station, Bangalore Rural District. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, in Sessions Case No. 232 of 2005, tried them, along with three other accused, for the offence under the above Sections read with with Section 120B IPC.

3) On 03.05.2006, the Trial Court acquitted all five Accused of all charges. The State of Karnataka then appealed the acquittal before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2006, which, on 29.03.2011, reversed the Acquittal and found all five Accused guilty. Subsequently, the Accused filed an Appeal in the Supreme Court, but the Appeal was dismissed by Order dated 01.03.2012 for failure to surrender. After surrendering, three Appellants had their Appeal restored, but one later died, leaving only two Appellants. The Supreme Court ultimately granted bail to them in 2019.

4) The Prosecution claimed that the Accused conspired to murder Babureddy, who mediated a land sale and attacked him with deadly weapons near the Hullahalli Gate Bus Stand on 07.02.2005. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. Despite contradictions in the testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses, the High Court convicted the Accused, disregarding the findings of the Trial Court, which had noted significant inconsistencies. Furthermore, upon the surrender of Ramesh, Kumara, and Praveen Alexander (Appellant Nos. 1, 2, and 5), the Appeal was restored concerning them.

 

TRIAL COURT:

The Trial Court found critical issues leading to the acquittal of the Accused. It noted significant contradictions in the eyewitnesses’ testimonies, including conflicting accounts about who took the deceased to the hospital and the timing of the Police’s visit. The delay in recording key witnesses’ statements and their failure to act during the attack raised doubts about the Prosecution’s credibility.

The Court also observed discrepancies regarding the autorickshaw involved in the crime and deemed the testimony of the autorickshaw driver unreliable. Additionally, the lack of independent witnesses and failure to establish a clear motive, combined with the absence of forensic evidence such as blood-stained clothes, undermined the Prosecution’s case.

 

HIGH COURT:

The High Court upheld the credibility of the eyewitnesses (PWs 1 to 3), finding their testimonies convincing despite minor contradictions noted by the Trial Court. The High Court concluded that these witnesses adequately proved the Accused’s presence and involvement in the murder. It emphasized that minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts are typical and not sufficient to reject their testimony.

The Court also found that the Trial Court had failed to identify any major contradictions that would undermine the Prosecution’s case. The High Court accepted the Prosecution’s evidence, including medical proof of homicidal death and eyewitness accounts, as robust and sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court overturned the acquittal and sentenced the five accused to life imprisonment.

 

SUPREME COURT:

Aggrieved by the Order dated 29.03.2011 of the High Court, Appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby challenging the High Court Order that allowed the Criminal Appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the Accused, as granted by the Trial Court, and convicting them for the murder of Babureddy.

Whether the High Court had adequately considered the evidence and whether it had provided sufficient grounds for setting aside the Trial Court’s Judgment.

 

OBSERVATION:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court while reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal, failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision. The Apex Court noted that the High Court did not convincingly address the significant contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses that were carefully highlighted by the Trial Court. Instead, the High Court merely restated the depositions of the eyewitnesses without critically examining the inconsistencies.

The Bench reiterated the established legal principle that when reversing a Judgment of acquittal, an Appellate Court must provide clear and compelling reasons. The burden on the Appellate Court is greater when overturning an acquittal, as it must overcome the double presumption of innocence — first, the basic presumption of innocence, and second, the acquittal by the Trial Court. The High Court, however, failed to meet this standard by not addressing the cogent reasons for acquittal provided by the Trial Court.

 

The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings regarding the contradictions in the prosecution’s case. The delay in recording the statements of key eyewitnesses, the failure of the eyewitnesses to immediately inform the police despite having mobile phones, and the absence of any independent witnesses significantly weakened the prosecution’s credibility. The Court found these issues to be material in determining the guilt of the Accused and questioned the High Court’s decision to overlook them.

 

CONCLUSION:

Based on the aforementioned facts, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal of the Accused without providing sufficient reasoning or addressing the significant contradictions in the Prosecution’s evidence. The Trial Court had rightly identified discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the delay in recording statements, and the absence of independent witnesses, all of which cast doubt on the Prosecution’s Case. The High Court failed to meet the legal standards required to overturn an acquittal, particularly the need for clear and compelling reasons.

Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal of the Accused, emphasizing the principle of double presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal. It set aside the High Court’s conviction, reaffirming that the prosecution had not proven the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer