Supreme Court of India
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAIversusPOPATBHAI MANILAL AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 987
- Decided
- 31 July 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D K JAIN
Holding
The High Court erred in affirming the acquittal; the medical evidence proved fatal injuries, related witnesses' testimony was admissible, the FIR delay was immaterial, and the Court did not properly apply Section 378 CrPC, so the acquittal was set aside.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Champaben Govindbhai, mother of the deceased, against the Gujarat High Court's order affirming the acquittal of three accused of murder. The Court examined whether the medical post‑mortem report establishing fatal chest injuries, the credibility of eye‑witnesses who were relatives of the victim, and the two‑hour delay in lodging the FIR could justify the acquittal. It held that the post‑mortem clearly showed injuries sufficient to cause death, that related witnesses' testimony is admissible if credible, and that the short delay was not material. Consequently, the High Court was found to have failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly under Section 378 of the CrPC in appreciating the evidence. The order of acquittal was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the High Court directed to rehear the State’s appeal.
Issues considered
- The appellate court's power to set aside an acquittal when medical evidence shows injuries sufficient to cause death
- Whether testimony of witnesses related to the deceased can be discarded solely on the basis of relationship
- Whether a two‑hour delay in filing the FIR is a ground for acquittal
- Whether the High Court exercised its jurisdiction properly under Section 378 of the CrPC in reviewing the evidence
- The standard of review in appeals against acquittal – when a finding of acquittal is perverse or shocks the conscience
Legislation cited
Subjects
appeal against acquittalmedical evidencewitness credibilitydelay in FIRSection 378 CrPCdouble presumption of innocencereversal of acquittalpost‑mortem findingshomicideevidence appraisal
Judgment
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 776
A CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI
V.
POPATBHAI MANILAL AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2002)
JULY 31, 2009
B
[D.K. JAIN AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.378 - Appeal
against acquittal - Acquittal by trial court - High Court
C affirmed order of acquittal holding that medical evidence did
not disclose that injuries caused on deceased were sufficient
in ordinary course of nature to cause death; witnesses were
interested persons and not reliable and there was delay in
lodging FIR - Appeal filed by complainant challenging the
o acquittal - Held: Finding of High Court was contrary to medical
record - Fact that witnesses were related cannot be a ground
to discard their evidence - Records show that there was no
delay in lodging FIR - High Court did not exercise its
jurisdiction properly u/s.378 in appreciating material on.
E record while approving order of acquittal of trial court - Order
of acquittal set aside - High Court to hear the State's appeal .._
afresh - Evidence.
The present appeal is filed by complainant against
the order of acquittal passed by the courts below. The
F complainant is the mother of the deceased who was
allegedly murdered by the respondents.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G HELD: 1. It is well settled that in an appeal against
acquittal the appellate court does not reverse the finding
of acquittal if the Court while granting acquittal has taken
a reasonable or a possible view on the evidence and
materials on record. Law is equally well settled that if the
776
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 777
AND ORS.
.. view taken by the Court granting acquittal is perverse or A
shocks the conscience of the higher Court, the finding
of acquittal can be reversed. The High Court as the first
appellate court has a duty to consider in detail the
material on record and also appreciate the evidence very
carefully before affirming the order of acquittal given by B
the trial Court. (Para 10] [782-F-H; 783-A]
Chandrappa and others v. State of Kamataka (2007) 4 1
SCC 415;Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of M.P. (2003)
3 SCC 21; Mahtab Singh & Anr. v. State of UP. JT 2009 (5) C
SC 431; Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P. (2006) 13 SCC 303;
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another v. State of
Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, referred to.
2.1. The High Court held that the medical evidence
did not disclose that injuries caused on the person of D
deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death. The said finding is totally contrary to the
record, if one looks at the evidence of the doctor who
conducted the post-mortem examination on the
deceased. On internal examination, the doctor opined E
that on the chest "injury goes deeply posterior upwards
and laterally in a way. The doctor clearly opined that the
cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to stab
injury on the chest. By characterizing these injuries as
not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death, the F
High Court, with respect, fell into a grave error and its
appreciation of evidence borders on perversity. This was
a glaring infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.
[Paras 15 and 16] (786-C-D; 787-8-D]
2.2. The other reason given by High Court in affirming G
the order of acqui~tal was that the witnesses were
interested persons and no independent witness was
examined. The other reason giyen by the High Court to
support_ the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court was
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 11 S.C.R.
A that much time had elapsed between the occurrence and ..
filing of a complaint. The High Court also came to the
finding that the blood stained clothes, weapons were not
examined and this created a doubt about the veracity of
the prosecution case. [Para 17] [787-E-G]
8
2.3. There were three eye-witnesses and one of them
was an injured witness. Their evidence cannot be
discarded just on the ground that they were related to the
deceased. It is settled law that if the evidence of the
witnesses, who are related, Is credible and cogent, the
c fact that they are related is not a ground for discarding
such evidence. [Para 18] [787-G-H; 788-A]
3. About the delay of lodging the FIR, it is found that
immediately after the occurrence the deceased was taken
D to the hospital by the complainant and other relations
where the deceased was declared dead. One G.D was
entered by 11 :05 on the same night which was just after
a gap of about 2 hours. Therefore considering normal
human conduct, this delay of about 2 hours between the
-
E occurrence and lodging of the complaint is not a factor
,
for discrediting the prosecution case. A finding of
acquittal on the ground of this delay is not a reasonable
exercise of jurisdiction by an appellate court. It also
appears from the record that the weapons of offence
F were examined to find out that they had stains of human r
blood, in group 'B'. Therefore considering all these facts
and circumstances of this case, it is held that the High
Court did not exercise its jurisdiction properly under
Section 378 CrPC in appreciating the material on record
while approving the order of acquittal of the trial court.
G
Therefore, the High Court's jud'.]ment of acquittal cannot
be sustained and is set-aside. [Paras 19 to 22] [788-B-F]
4. The High Court would, now hear the State's appeal
H
afresh and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
•
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 779
AND ORS.
~ [Paras 23 and 24) [788-G-H] A
Case Law Reference:
(2001) 4 sec 415 referred to Para 11
(2003) 3 sec 21 referred to Para 12 B
JT 2009 (5) SC 431 referred to Para 12
(2006) 13 sec 303 referred to Para 13
~
(1973) 2 sec 793 referred to Para 14
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 429 of 2002.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.7.2001 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 933 of
D
2000.
Chinmoy Khaladkar, Vimal Chandra S. Dave for the
Appellant.
Bimal Roy Jad, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal, Somanath E
Padhan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GANGULY, J. 1. This is an appeal by the complainant
i against the judgment and order of acquittal by the High Court F ,
of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 933/2000 which upheld the
order of acquittal of all the accused by the Principal Judge, City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 274/99.
2. The deceased, Arunbhai and Popatbhai Manila!, G
Jayantibhai Manilal and lshwarbhai Manilal were residents of
Bapafal Ghanchi's Chaw!, Chamanpura, Ahmedabad.
~ Champaben Govindbhai Patni, the complainant, the mother of
the deceased, was married to Govindbhai, who was at the
material time working in Mumbai. They have three sons and
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 11 S.C.R.
A three daughters, the deceased Arunbhai, being the eldest of
the sons. The deceased, a rickshaw-puller by profession, was
married 10 years back to Madhuben. She is the daughter of
Chamanbhai Popatbhai, the uncle of the accused persons. But
at the time of the incident Madhuben was not staying in the
B family of the deceased.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.6.1999, around
9.00 p.m., the deceased Arun was sleeping on a cot on the Otla
(extended balcony) of the house after his supper. Accused No.
1, Popat was walking past by him when the leg of the
C deceased, which was dangling from the cot, touched him. At
that the Accused no. 1 started abusing the deceased to which
he protested and a scuffle ensued and in the process they
reached the entrance of the chawl. The complainant, who was
inside the house heard the noise and came out to see that the
D two were quarrelling. So she told her son not to quarrel and took
him aside. Accused No. 1 Popat went to his house. After
sometime, all the three accused came to the place of
occurrence, armed with weapons. Accused No. 1 had a gupti
(a long double edged knife) in his hand; Accused No. 2 Jayanti
E was armed with a pipe while the Accused No. 3 lshwar was
holding a Dhoka (a wooden log, used for cleaning clothes). At
that time, the deceased Arun was standing along with his sister
Meghna (PW 4) and the Accused No. 1 caught hold of her. The
deceased told him to let his sister go as the quarrel was
F between the two of them. At that point of time, the Accused
No.1 hit the deceased with the gupti, first on the chest and then
on the stomach. The Accused No. 2 hit the deceased on the
chest with the pipe and Accused No. 3 hit him with the dhoka.
The deceased thus received several blows all over the body.
G Vijay Patni (PW 5), the nephew of the complainant who had
been living with them at the point of time, came to the scene
and tried to intervene but was hit on the head by Accused No.
2. The deceased fell on the ground in front of his house
thereupon all the three accused ran away from the place. The
H
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 781
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
deceased was taken to the hospital by Champaben, her A
husband's sister Dadamben and her nephew, Vijay where he
-~ was examined and declared dead. A post-mortem examination
was conducted, after which the complainant brought the dead
body home. The police came fo her house and her complaint
was recorded. B
4. The said complaint was recorded by P.I. Shri
Pratapsinh Udhesinh Ravol (PW12) of Meghaninagar Police
Station on 19.6.99. The complaint (Ex. 50) and the Report (Ex.
51) were sent to the police station to register the offence. PW
12 also recorded the statements of PW 4 and PW 5 on the
c
same date. He also recorded statements of the relatives of the
deceased and the other people present at the scene of
· incident. He made panchnama of the place of incident and also
Sb1zed some pieces of bricks from there. PW 12 then went to
the civil hospital where the deceased had been taken and made D
inquest panchnama of the dead body . .The blood stained
clothes and a sample bottle of blood of the deceased was
brought to the police station by P.C. Maheshbhai Maganbhai
and was seized under a panchnama (Ex.25).
E
5. On 19.6.99, the accused persons were brought to the
police station at 1.00 a.m. and their panchnama was made.
The blood stained clothes of the Accused No. 2 was also
seized and a panchnama was made. Since the police felt that
there was enough evidence against them, the three accused F
were arrested at 2.30 a.m. on 20.6.1999 and were interrogated.
6. The day after their arrest, at the behest of Accused No.
2, the police found the weapons of offence which were hidden
in the mailia (loft). The police as well as Accused No. 2 went
to their house, broke the lock and recovered a wooden dh6ka, G
an iron pipe and a gupti which were seized and panchnamas
_, prepared. The seized weapons and clothes were sent to the
FSL on 22.6.99.
7. The accused were charged for offences under Section H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
~
A 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (referred
to as IPC herein after) and in the alternative, under Sections
302 read with Section 114 of the IPC. In addition, Accused No. ~
2 Vijaybhai was also tried for an offence punishable under
Section 324 of the IPC whilel the rest were tried for the said
B offence punishable under Section 114 of the IPC. Charges were
also brought against each of them for offences punishable
under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act 1951. After
trial, the accused were acquitted by the Court of the Learned
City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad vide judgment dated
c 7.8.2000. It may be mentioned that a cross-complaint was filed
by the accused persons registered at 1:25 a.m on 19.6./
20.6.1999 alleging that the accused No.1 was injured during
the incident.
8. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal
D before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The contention
of the State was that there was enough evidence for convi.ction
of the accused persons and the Trial Court ought to have
believed the case of the prosecution on the basis of the
evidence of the star witness Champaben which was supported
E by other two eye-witnesses, namely Vijay (PW 5) and
Meghnaben (PW 4). The High Court however dismissed the
appeal by the impugned judgment dated 18.7.2001.
9. Hence this SLP by the complainant Champaben
F Govindbhai, the mother of the deceased. The State supports
the complainant's appeal.
10. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the
Appellate Court does not reverse the finding of acquittal if the
Court while granting acquittal has taken a reasonable or a
G possible view on the evidence and materials on record. Law
is equally well settled that if the view taken by the Court granting
acquittal is perverse or shocks the conscience of the higher
Court. the finding of acquittal can be reversed. In the instant
case, the High Court as the First Appellate Court has a duty to
H consider in detail the material on record and also should
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 783
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
appreciate the evidence very carefully before affirming the order A
of acquittal given by the trial Court.
11. The counsel for the respondents re;erred to the
decision of this Court in Chandrappa and others Vs. State of
Kamataka - (2007) 4 SCC 415, to put forward the argument B
that an appellate court must bear in mind, 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
T the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved C
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused
having been acquitted, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
In this connection we may refer to the principles summarized
in paragraph 42 at page 432 of the judgment and they are
extracted:- D
"42 ..... (1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded.
E
(2)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
·lim'itation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, ~oth on questions of fact and of law.
·'
., (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and F
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 G
language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the co_ur:t to review the evidenc¢' and to come to its own
conclusion.
H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
A (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 avai!able to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall
B 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.
c (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should
not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
court."
D 12. Also, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused
has been taken by the trial court it ought not to be disturbed by
the appellate court (Para 44). Reference was also made to the
case of Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of MP. - (2003)
E 3 SCC 21, where this Court had held that in an appeal against
acquittal, the High Court is competent to reappreciate the
evidence to find out whether the trial judge has misappreciated
any part of the evidence or not. If the evidence has been
properly appreciated and conclusions drawn from them are
F reasonable in that case reversal of the finding of acquittal is
not warranted (Para 35).
13. The counsel for the petitioners on the other hand cited
the case of Mahtab Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. - JT 2009
(5) SC 431 [at Page. 437, Para. 16-18] which reiterated the
G following view of the SC laid down in Kalyan Singh Vs. State
of M.P. - (2006) 13 SCC 303, wherein it has been held "It is
now well known that if two views are possible, the appellate
court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal.
We do not, however mean to lay down the law that the High
H
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 785
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
" Court, in a case where a judgment of acquittal is in question, ·A
would not go into the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution or by the State but we would like to point out that
even if the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal
recorded by t~e trial court, it is incumbent on the High Court to
arrive at the conclusion that no two views are possible." (Para B
16, page 437)
14. In dealing with the question of appeal against acquittal,
.re
a very balanced view has been struck by a three-Judge Bench
of this court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another Vs.
State of Maharashtra - (1973) 2 SCC 793. In paragraph 6,
c
· page 799 of the report, Justice Krishna Iyer,. speaking for the
Bench, observed:-
,
"6 ..... The d0311gers
- of exagg_e(ated
.
' . devotion to the
rule of benefit oLdoubt at the expen1e·of social defence D
and to the soothing/sentiment that alLacquittals are, always
good regardless of justice to the victim and the community,
demand especial emphasis in the contemporary ·context
of escalating crime and escape. The judicial instrument has
a publ~~countability. The cherished principles or golden E
thr~d 'of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs thro'
the'web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to
embrace every hunch, hesitan~y and degree of doubt. The
excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand
• guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer F
is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the
'
" accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then
break down and lose credibility with the community. The
evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned
author has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the
G
simple facJthat just one guilty person has gone unpunished.
Cl If unmerit~d acquittals become general, they tend to lead
to a cynical disregard·of the law, and this in turn leads to
a pub'rtc::demand for harsher legal presumptions against
indicted 'persohs' and more severe puni::;~ment of those
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 11 S.C.R.
A who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the
guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding
the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons
it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that "a miscarriage
of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less
B than from the conviction of the innocent .... " In short, our
jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must
be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal
justice potent and realistic."
C 15. "'Fhis Court finds that unfortunately the High Court in this
case acted in a very casual manner and has reached certain
findings which are perver~e. The High Court has held "medical
evidence does not disclose that injuries caused on the person
of Arun (deceased) were sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death." The aforesaid finding is totally contrary to the
D record, if one looks at the evidence of Dr. Yogeshbhai Jadav,
Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, who did the post-
mortem examination on deceased Arun. Dr. Jadav found the
following injuries on the external part of the body:-
E (1) 2.5 x 1 cm vertical stab wound on left side of chest to
midline end. 2 cm inferior to nipple plane margins of
wound are out sharply and inverted.
(2) 2 x 1 x 1 cm incised wound on medical and superior
of Rt. elbow directed downward positively.
F
(3) 4 x m 11 near incised wound limited to skin on Rt.
lower chest lateral aspect directed downward.
(4) 2.5 c.m. transverse linear incised wound limited to skin
G on lateral end lower abdomen.
(5) 1 x 1 cm·contusion abrasion on lateral and upper part
of left lip 4 cm inferior to injury no.4.
(6) ... x 1 cm transverse contusion abrasion posterial to
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 787
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
injury no5. A
Other injury which were found because of
investigation of touch, if any.
Fracture of left 4th and 5th sternochondral area of
ribs. B
16. On internal examination, the doctor opined on the chest
"injury goes deeply posterior upwards and laterally in a way. It
.. cuts skin, tissue, sterno, chondral area of left 4th and 5th ribs
along with fractures, inter costal muscles, pericardium, medical c
border of it. Verticle, it measures 2 cm then pieres through and
through on posterial wall it measures 1 cm then ultimately ends
at lower lobe upper part of left lung it measures 0.5 x 05 cm
and causing - Hemo Pericardium and Hemotharax in left
Thoaraic cavity. Blood and clots found about 1800 ml." The D
doctor clearly opined that the cause of death is shock and
hemorrhage due to stab injury on the chest. By characterizing
these injuries as not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause
death, the High Court, with respect, fell into a grave error and
its appreciation of evidence borders on perversity.
E
17. In our view this is a glaring infirmity in the judgment 'of
the High Court. The other reason given by High Court in
affirming the order of acquittal is that only interested persons
are the witnesses and no independent witness has been
~ examined. The other reason given by the High Court to support F
the judgment of acquittal of the Trial Court is that much-time has
elapsed between the occurrence and filing of a complaint. The
High Court has also come to the finding that the blood stained
clothes, weapons were not examined and this has created a
doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. G
18. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that
... just as the witnesses are related to the deceased that is no
ground to discard their evidence. In the instant case, there are
three eye-witnesses and one of them is an injured witness. Their
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
A evidence cannot be discarded just on the ground that they are
related to the deceased. It is settled law if the evidence of the
witnesses, who are related, is credible and cogent, the fact that
they are related is not a ground for discarding such evidence.
This Court has held that related witriess do not normally spare
B the guilty and implicate innocent persons.
19. About the delay of lodging the FIR, this Court finds that
immediately after the occurrence the deceased was taken to
the hospital by the complainant and other relations where the
deceased was declared dead. One G.D was entered by 11 :05
C on the same night which was just after a gap of about 2 hours.
Therefore considering normal human conduct, this delay of
about 2 hours between the occurrence and lodging of the
complaint is not a factor for discrediting the prosecution case.
A finding of acquittal on the ground of this delay is not a
D reasonable exercise of jurisdiction by an Appellate Court. .
20. It also appears from the record that the weapons of
offence were examined to find out that they had stains of human
blood, in group 'B'.
E
21. Therefore considering all these facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court is constrained to hold that
the High Court did not exercise its jurisdiction properly under
Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code in appreciating
the material on recorctwhile approving the order of acquittal of
F the trial court.
22. Therefore, the High Court's judgment of acquittal cannot
be sustained and is set-aside.
G 23. The High Court will now hear the State's appeal afresh.
24. We expect, having regard to the passage of time, High
Court will try its best to dispose of the State's appeal as ..
expeditiously as possible.
H
CHAMPABEN GOVINDBHAI v. POPATBHAI MANILAL 789
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
25. The High Court will not feel bound by any observation A
made in the judgment. The ~bservations which have been made
here are for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal.
The High Court is at liberty to apply its mind to the evidence
and materials available on record and come to its independent
finding. The appeal is, thus, allowed. B
D.G. Appeal allowed.
i.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appeal against acquittal"Sign in to search