Holding

When two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s view favourable to the accused; thus the High Court’s conviction was set aside and the acquittal restored.

Summary

The appellants were acquitted by the trial court of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324 and 149 IPC because the court found contradictions in eye‑witness testimony and noted that key witnesses were not examined, giving them the benefit of doubt. The State appealed under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the High Court set aside the acquittal, convicting the accused. The Supreme Court examined whether an appellate court can overturn an acquittal and what standard applies, emphasizing that the Code imposes no limitation on the appellate court’s power to re‑appreciate evidence but that, when two reasonable conclusions are possible, the view favourable to the accused should not be disturbed. Applying this principle, the Court held that the trial court’s view was plausible and therefore could not be disturbed. Consequently, the High Court’s conviction was set aside and the trial court’s acquittal restored.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, on appeal under Section 378 CrPC, can set aside a trial court’s order of acquittal and on what grounds.
Whether the appellate court must be satisfied that the trial court’s reasons are non‑existent, perverse or wholly misconceived, or whether a different view of the evidence suffices.
Whether, when two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should disturb the acquittal.
Whether the contradictions in witness testimony and non‑examination of material witnesses justify the trial court’s grant of benefit of doubt.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 372, s. 373, s. 374, s. 375, s. 376, s. 377, s. 378, s. 423
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 324

Subjects

appeal against acquittalSection 378 CrPCbenefit of doubtpresumption of innocencereappreciation of evidenceconviction reversaldouble presumptionsubstantial and compelling reasons

Judgment

A CHANDRAPPA AND ORS. t-
v.
STATEOFKARNATAKA

FEBRUARY 15, 2007

B (C.K. THAKKARANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 378-Penal Code, 1860- ,r '
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 rlw section 149-Acquittal of accused by
trial court-High Court reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the
c accused -Correctness of-Held, where two views are possible on record,
one favourable to the accused should be adopted-On facts, the view taken
by the trial court cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law-
Hence, order of acquittal passed by trial court restored.

D Prosecution filed a charge-sheet before trial court against appellants-
accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 r/w
Section 149 IPC. The trial court, considering the contradictions and ;.,

discrepancies in deposition of eye witnesses and non-examination of main
~
witness, acquitted the appellants giving them a benefit of doubt. In an appeal
against the order of acquittal, the High Court reversed the order of the trial
E court.

In appeal, the appellants contended that the High Court, in an appeal
under section 378 Cr.P.C. can set aside the order of acquittal of the trial court
only if it is satisfied that the reasons recorded are non-existent, extraneous,
perverse, acquittal palpably wrong, totally ill-founded or wholly misconceived;
F and that, on facts, the view taken by the trial court on the basis of evidence ~
was legal, proper and in consonance with law and hence, the High Court erred
in reversing the order of acquittal.

Respondent State contended that the High Court has all the powers which
were exercised by the trial court and it is open to it to re-appreciate and review
G
the evidence and come to its own conclusion; and that the High Court, on facts,
rightly reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the accused.
""
Allowing the appeal, the Court r
H 630

t
.
A
CHANDRAPPAv. STATE OF KARNATAKA 631
...
-+ HELD: 1.1. Prosecution witnesses tried to suppress facts which would A
throw doubt as to the correctness of the case or the manner in which the
incident had happend. The view of the trial court that the accused could get
benefit of doubt cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law. Even
though, in an appeal against acquittal, powers of appellate court are as that of
the trial court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire
evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion B
on fact as well as on law, in the present case, the view taken by the trial court
y for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence,
., therefore, it can be said that the other view was equally possible. But it is
well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record
and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought c
not to be disturbed by the apt?ellate Court. In this case, a Possible view on the
evidence of prosecution had been taken by the trial court which ought not to
have been disturbed by the appellate Court. (Paras 43 & 44)
1649-E, H; 650-A, BJ

Shea Swarup & Ors. v. King Emperor, (1934) 61 IA 398: AIR (1934) D
_, PC 227 2; Nur Mohammadv. Emperor, AIR (1945) PC 151; Prandas v. State,
AIR (1954) SC 36 CB; Surajpal Singh v. State, 11952) SCR 193: AIR (1952)
I SC 52; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, [1953) SCR 418: AIR (1953) SC 76;
Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR (1955) SC 807; Aher Raja Khima v. State
ofSaurashtra 11955( 2 SCR 1285: AIR (1956) SC 217; Sanwat Singh v. State
of Rajasthan, 11961) 3 SCR 120; AIR (1961) SC 715; MG. Agrawal v. State
E
of Maharashtra, [1963) 2 SCR 405; AIR (1963) SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793; K. Gopal Reddy v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, [1979) 2 SCR 363: (1979) 1 SCC 355: AIR (1979) SC
387; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State ofGujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225; Alasrakha
v. K Mansuriv. State of Gujarat, (2002 )3 SCC 57; Bhaqwan Singh & Ors. v. F
State ofMP., (2002) 4 SCC 85; Harijana Thirupala v. Public Procecutor, High
Court ofA.P., Hyderabad, [2002) 6 SCC 470; Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath
Jha, [2003) 12 SCC 606 and Kallu v. State ofA.P., 12006) 10 SCC 313: AIR
(2006) SC 831 referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 853 of G
2006.
_),

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2005 of the High Court of
Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1008of1999.

Sushi! Kumar, Rajesh Mahale for the Appellants. H
t
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.
...
A Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra and Vikrant Yadav and Sashidhar for )-
the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. I. The present appeal is filed against the judgment
B and order of conviction dated November 24, 2005 passed by the High Court
of Kamataka in Criminal Appeal No. I008 of 1999 whereby it set aside the
order dated July 14, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur
in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1991 acquitting the accused (appellants herein) )'
I
of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 324 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('!PC' for short).
c
2. Brief facts of the case are that Accused No. 2, Somashekhara, Accused
No. 8, Thammaiah and PW 8 Krishnaiah were running a Chit Transaction in
which ·successful members were given articles like vessels, watches, sarees,
cloth-pieces, etc. The said transaction was conducted once a week in the
D shop of PW 8 Krishnaiah and also at Kollapuradamma Temple at
Hanumanthapura. It is the case of the prosecution that on October 30, 1989,
one such transaction was held at about 5.30 p.m. in which one Nagaraj, the !-
successful bidder was given a copper vessel (Kolaga). Nagaraj returned the
\
vessel with his maternal uncle as it was old and demanded a new vessel. But
the request was refused by the proprietors of the Chit Transaction. It is
E further the prosecution case that at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day, i.e.
October 30, 1989, near Hanumanthapura Bypass, when PWI Veerabhadraiah
along with PWs 2, 3 and 4 (Chikkanna, Rudramurthy and Puttiah) was
proceeding, the Accused Nos. I to 8 who had formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly and were armed with weapons like, knife, reapers and
stones attacked PWs 2 to 4. The accused caused injuries to all the three
F
persons. It is alleged that when the quarrel was going on and PWs 2 to 4 were
injured; deceased Anjinappa came forward and intervened and went ahead to
stop the quarrel. Accused No. 8 Thammaiah took out a button knife from his
pocket and stabbed Anjinappa on the left side of his chest, due to which
Anjinappa slumped and fell on the ground. Complainant Veerabhadraiah along
G with one Krishnaiah, s/o Oblaiah carried Anjinappa in an autorickshaw to the
hospital. On the way to hospital, Anjinappa breathed his last. The dead body
of Anjinappa was then taken to the General Hospital, Tumkur. The accused ...._
persons' after committing assault, threw the clubs and rippers at the spot and
ran away. At about 11.30 p.m., PW 13 Madhukar Musale, Circle Inspector of
Police, Tumkur received an information about the incident of rioting that took
H
CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 633

place at Hanumanthapura. On being intimated by PSI, PW 7 A.R. Shariff about A
the rioting and the injured being admitted to General Hospital at Tumkur, PW
13 went to the hospital and learnt that Anjinappa had died and the other three
injured persons were taking treatment. It is alleged that PW I, Veerabhadraiah,
who was present in the hospital, was questioned by PW 13. The information
given by him was recorded in writing as per Ex. P-1 as complaint and was
registered as Crime No. 86 of 1989 for offences punishable Sections 143, 14 7, B
148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 !PC. Accused No. 7 Tukaraiah died
during the pendency of the case and the trial abated against him.

3. Inquest over the dead body of deceased Anjinappa was done and
the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW 11 Dr. Hanumakka C
who conducted the postmortem opined that the injuries were ante mortem in
nature. She found a punctured wound over the left 3rd inter costal space
extending from medial edge of the areola of left nipple obliquely downwards
and medially 2" x 2" size with clean cut margin and fat protruding through
the wound the depth of which was 3112 inches. Likewise, injuries to PWs 2 to
4 were also proved by PW 12, Dr. Chandrasekhara Prasad. D
.4. After completion of investigation, all the accused were charged for
offences punishable under ~ections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section
149 ofIPC.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 13 E
witnesses. PWs I to 4 were portrayed as eye witnesses and amongst them,
PWs 2 to 4 were shown to be injured persons. They supported the case of
the prosecution as to Chit Transaction, the incident which took place at about
5.30 p.m. on October 30, 1989 as also the assault at 9.30 p.m. on the same day.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, considering F
contradictions and discrepancies in the deposition of eye witnesses, non-
examination of Nagraj who was the root cause of quarrel and Krishniah, son
ofObalaiah, who accompanied deceased Anjanianappa to hospital, conflicting
version as to injury sustained by accused No. I Chandrappa, presence of the
deceased and injured witnesses at the Hanumanthapura Bypass at 9.30 p.m., G
mudamal knife not being the same with which the deceased was assaulted,
medical evidence as to injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses and other
circumstances, held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it could
not be conclusively established that the prosecution had proved. the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, held that the
H
-l'·

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A accused were entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted them.
7. In an appeal against an order of acquittal by the State, the High Court
reversed the order of the trial court. It observed that on careful examination
of evidence of PWs I to 4, it was clearly established that deceased Anjaniappa
was done to death by Accused No. 8 and PWs 2·1:0 4 sustained injuries in
B the course of incident. It was also held by the High Court that contradictions
and variations were of minor nature which did not affect substratum of the
prosecution case and evidence of PWs I to 4 had remained totally unshaken
and there was a ring of truth running through their testimony which inspired ..,
confidence notwithstanding trivial omissions and discrepancies, which did ,.
C not go to the root of the matter. The High Court, accordingly, set aside
acquittal recorded by the trial court and convicted the appellants for various
offence_s as ordered in the final paragraph 55 of the judgment.

8. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the
appellants have approached this Court. Notice was issued by the Court on
D August 07, 2006 on appeal as also on application for bail. On November 17,
2006, bail was refused but the Registry was directed to post the matter for
final hearing on January 16, 2007.

9. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.

E W. Mr. Sushi! Kumar, Senior Advocate for the appellant-accused
contended that the accused having been acquitted by the Trial Court ought
not to have been convicted by the High Court in an appeal against an order
of acquittal. He submitted that it is settled !aw that an order of acquittal can
be set aside by the High Court only if the appellate Court is satisfied that the
reasons in support of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court are non-existent,
F extraneoµs, perverse, acquittal palpably wrong, totally ill-founded or wholly
miscon~eived; the Court had 'obstinately blundered' or reached the conclusion,
'wholly wrong', 'manifestly erroneous' or 'demonstrably unsustainable', which
resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him, the view taken by the
Trial Court was legal, proper and in consonance with law and the High Court,
G in an appeal against acquittal, ought not to have disturbed the order even if
two views were possible. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves
to be allowed and the appellants are entitled to acquittal.

11. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the
order passed by the High Court. He submitted that once an order of acquittal
H is challenged by the State, the appellate course has all the powers which were
}--

CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 635
exercised by the Trial Court and it is open to the appellate Court to reappreciate A
and review such evidence and to come to its own conclusion. On facts, the
counsel submitted that the High Court, considering the ground reality as to
possibility of contradictions and omissions held that they did not affect the
genesis or substratum of prosecution case and convicted the accused. The
order does not suffer from legal infirmity calling for interference under Article B
136 of the Constitution and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

12. In view of rival submissions of the parties, we think it proper to
consider and clarify the legal position first. Chapter XXIX (Sections 372-394)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the present
Code') deals with appeals. Section 372 expressly declares that no appeal shall C
lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by the
Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Section 373 provides
for filing of appeals in certain cases. Section 374 allows appeals from
convictions. Section 375 bars appeals in cases where the accused pleads
guilty. Likewise, no appeal is maintainable in petty cases (Section 376). Section
377 permits appeals by the State for enhancement of sentence. Section 378 D
confers power on the State to present an appeal to the High Court fronl an
order of acquittal. The said section is material and may be quoted in extenso;

3 78. Appeal in case of acquittal. -(.I) 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 E
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.

(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which
the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police F
Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make
investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this
Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor
to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), to G
the high Court from the order of acquittal.

(3) No appeal under sub-section (I) or sub-section (2) shall be
entertained except with the leave of the High Court.

(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R.

A upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by
the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the
order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the
High Court.

(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special
B leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the
High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is
a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from
the date of that order of acquittal.

(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the
C , 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 (I)
or under sub-section (2).

IJ. Whereas Sections 379-380 cover special cases of appeals, other
sections lay down procedure to be followed by appellate courts.
D
14. It may be stated that more or less similar provisions were found in
the Ccide 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,
E 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.

15. 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
p by the .Legislature on the powers of the appellate Court in dealing with
appea!s against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has
full power to reappreciate, 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.
G
16. 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 available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless
H he is proved to be guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused
CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 637
--+ having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not A
weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

17. Though the above principles are well established, a different note
was struck in several decisions by various High Courts and even by th is
Court. It is, therefore, appropriate if we consider some of the leading decisions
on the point. B
18. The first decision was rendered by Judicial Committee of the Privy
.>
y Council in Shea Swarup & Ors. v. King Emperor, (1934) 61 IA 398 : AIR
\
(1934) PC 227(2). In Sheo Swamp, 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 c
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 D
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
-t 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 E
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 F
f 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 G
.,. were cited revealing different views by High Courts dealing with an appeal
,,..l
from an order of acquittal, the Committee did not think it proper to discuss

-
all the cases.

19. Lord Russel summed up the legal position thus;
H
-i'

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S. C.R.

A "There is in their opinion no foundation for the view, apparently
:1-
. supported by the judgments of some Courts in India, that the High
Court has no power or jurisdiction to reverse an order of acquittal on
' a matter of fact, except in cases in which the lower Court has
'obstinately blundered', or has 'through incompetence, stupidity or
perversity' reached such 'distorted conclusions as to produce _a
B positive miscarriage of justice', or has in some other way so conducted
itself as to produce a glaring miscarriage of justice, or has been tricked
by the defence so as to produce a similar result".
'(
1
20: His Lordship, then proceeded to observe:
c "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full
power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the
order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed
upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code."
D
21. The Committee, however, cautioned appellate courts and stated;
"'--
But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before
~
reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will
always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (I)
E
the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2)
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption
certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his
trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4)
the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact
F arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.
To state this however is only to say that the High Court in its
conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules
and principles well known and recognized in the administration of
justice".

G (emphasis supplied)
".
22. In Nur Mohammad v. Emperor, AIR (1945) PC 151, the Committee ..>.,
reiterated the above view in Sheo Swarup and held that in an appeal against
acquittal, the High Court has full powers to review and to reverse acquittal.

H 23. So far as this Court is concerned, probably the first decision on the
-
\
-}--

CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 639
point was Prandas v. State, ·AIR (1954) SC 36 (Though the case was decided A
-+ on March 14, 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 !PC. The High Court, for convicting
the accused, placed reliance on certain eye-witnesses.
B
24. Upholding the decision of the High Court and following the
proposition of law in Sheo Swamp, a six-Judge Bench speaking through Fazl
Ali, J. unanimously stated:
't
"It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the
view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court c
has no power under Section 417, Criminal P. C, to reverse a judgment
of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate
.... Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce
a miscarriage of justice".

(emphasis supplied)
D

-~ 25. In Surajpal Singh v. State, [1952] SCR 193: AIR (1952) SC 52, a two-
Judge Bench observed that it was well established that in an appeal under
i
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 E
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.

26. In Ajmer Singh v. State ofPunjab, [1953] SCR 418 : AIR (1953) SC F
76, 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
G
also commented that the High Court committed an error of law in observing
,,I.. that "when a strong 'prima facie' case is made out against an accused
. person it is his duty to explain the circumstances appearing in evidP-nce
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." H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R.

A 27. Upholding the contention, this Court said;

"We think this criticism is well-founded. After an order of acquittal
has been made, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced by
that order, and that being so, the trial court's decision can be reversed
not on the ground that the accused had failed to explain the
B circumstances appearing against him but only for very substantial
and compelling reasons.

(emphasis supplied)
'f

28 .. In Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1955) SC 807, this Court
c said;
"In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the appellate
court in an appeal under S. 417, Criminal P.C. came to the conclusion
that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not
set aside that order.
D
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
E acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of
clbserving the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been
recorded in its presence.

It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers
of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal
F as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to
the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused
person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate
stage and the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion
of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal.
G If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles
in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot
'be said to have been vitiated". -'-.

(emphasis supplied)
H 29. fo Aher Raja Khima v. State ofSaurashtra, [1955] 2 SCR 1285 : AIR
\-

CHANDRAPPA v_ STATE OF KARNATAKA[THAKKAR, J.] 641

(1956) SC 217, the accused was prosecuted under Sections 302 and 447 !PC. A
He was acquitted by the trial Court but convicted by the High Court. Dealing
with the power of the High Court against an order of acquittal, Bose, J.
speaking for the majority (2:1) stated; "It is, in our opinion, well settled that
it is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence;
there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the B
trial Court was wrong" (emphasis supplied)

30. Venkatarama Ayyar, J. (minority), in his dissenting judgment stated:
t "Do the words "compelling reasons" in the above passage import a
limitation on the powers of a court hearing an appeal under Section
417 not applicable to a court hearing appeals against conviction? If c
they do, then it is merely the old doctrine that appeals against acquittal
are in a less favoured position, dressed in a new garb, and the reasons
for rejecting it as unsound are as powerful as those which found
favour with the Privy Council in Shea Swarup v. King-Emperor, AIR
(1934) PC 227 and Nur Mohammadv. Emperor, A.LR. (1945) P.C. 151. D
But it is probable that these words were intended to express, as were
..> the similar words of Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup that the court,
hearing an appeal under section 417 should observe the rules which
I
all appellate courts should, before coming to a conclusion different
from that of the trial court. If so understood, the expression "compelling
reasons" would be open to no comment. Neither would it be of any E
special significance in its application to appeals against acquittals
any more than appeals against conviction".

(emphasis supplied)

31. Jn Sanwat Singh v. State ofRajasthan, [ 1961] 3 SCR 120 : AIR 1961 F
-{
SC 715, a three-Judge Bench considered almost all leading decisions on the
point and observed that there was no difficulty in applying the principles laid
down by the Privy Council and accepted by the Supreme Court. The Court,
however, noted that appellate courts found considerable difficulty in
understanding the scope of the words "substantial and compelling reasons"
G
used in certain decisions. Subba Rao, J., (as His Lordship then was) stated:
_,).._
"This Court obviously did not and could not add a condition to s. 417
of the Criminal Procedure Code. The words were intended to convey
the idea that an appellate court not only shall bear in mind the
principles laid down by the Privy Council but also must give its clear H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A reasons for coming to the conclusion that the order of acquittal was
wrong".

32. The Court concluded:

"The foregoing discussion yields the following results : (I) an appellate
B court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swamp's
case afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case
in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used 1
in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) "substantial and compelling
reasons", (ii) "good and sufficiently cogent reasons", and (iii) "strong
c reasons" are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an
appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire
evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should
not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the
questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support
D of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts,
but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it
to hold that the acquittal was not justified".

33.'Again, in MG. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, [1963] 2 SCR 405
: AIR (1963) SC 200, the point was raised before a Constitution Bench of this
E Court. Taking note of earlier decisions, Gajendragadkar, J. (as His Lordship
then was) laid down the principle in the following words:

"In some of the earlier decisions of this Court, however, in emphasising
the importance of adopting a cautious approach in dealing with appeals
against acquittals, it was observed that the presumption of innocence
F is reinforced by the order of acquittal and so, 'the findings of the trial
Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing
their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling
reasons' : vide Surajpa/ Singh v. The State, [1952] S.C.R. 193, 201.
Similarly in Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab [1953] S.C.R. 418, it was
observed that the interference of the High Court in an appeal against
G the order of acquittal would be justified only if there are 'very
s~bstantial and compelling reasons to do so'. In some other decisions,
it has been stated that an order of acquittal can be reversed only for
'good and sufficiently cogent reasons' or for 'strong reasons'. In
appreciating the effect of these observations, it must be remembered
H that these observations were not intended to lay down a rigid or
CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 643

--; inflexible rule which should govern the decision of the High Court in A
appeals against acquittals. They were not intended, and should not
be read to have intended to introduce an additional condition in
clause (a) of section 423(1) of the Code. All that the said obser1ations
are intended to emphasise is that the approach of the High Court in
dealing with an appeal against acquittal ought to be cautious because
as Lord Russell observed in the case of Sheo Swarup, the presumption
B
of innocence in favour or the accused 'is not certainly weakened by
the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial'. Therefore, the test
')'"
i, suggested by the expression 'substantial and compelling reasons'
should not be construed as a formula which has to be rigidly applied
in every case. That is the effect of the recent decisions of this Court, c
for instance, in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Harbans
Singh v. State of Punjab, [1962] Supp. I S.C.R. I 04; and so, it is not
necessary that before reversing a judgment of acquittal, the High
Court must necessarily characterise the findings recorded therein as
perverse.
D
(emphasis supplied)
;)
34. Yet in another leading decision in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
>'
of Maharashtra, [I 973] 2 SCC 793, this Court held that in India, there is no
jurisdictional limitation on the powers of appellate Court. "In law there are no
fetters on the plenary power of the appellate Court to review the whole E
evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and, indeed, it has a duty
to scrutinize the probative material de novo, informed, however, by the weighty
thought that the rebuttable innocence attributed to the accused having been
converted into an acquittal the homage our jurisprudence owes to individual
liberty constrains the higher court not to upset the holding without very F
-1. convincing reasons and comprehensive considerations."

35. Putting emphasis on balance between importance of individual liberty
and evil of acquitting guilty persons, Krishna Iyer, J. said;

"Even at this stage we may remind ourselves of a necessary social
G
perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic
___._ appreciation. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of
benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing
sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to
the victim and the community, demand especial emphasis in the
H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicial
instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or
golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs thro' the
web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every
hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude
reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one
B innocent martyr shall not suffer 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 (Glanville Williams : 'Proof of Guilt') has saliently observed,
c goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has
• gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend
to lead to a cynical disregard cf the law, and this in turn leads to a
public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted 'persons'
and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too
frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law,
D 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 than from, the
conviction of innocent..' Jn short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for
presum_ed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to
E make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be
struck between chasing chance possibilities as good enough to set
the delinquent free and chopping the logic of preponderant
probability to punish marginal innocents". (emphasis supplied)

36. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1979] 2 SCR 363
F : [1979] 1 SCC 355: AIR 1979 SC 387, the Court was considering the power
of the High Court against an order of acquittal under Section 378 of the
present Code. Chinnappa Reddy, J. after considering the relevant decisions
on the point stated:

"The principles are now well settled. At one time it was thought that
G an order of acquittal could be set aside for 'substantial and compelling
reasons' only and Courts used to launch on a search to discover
those 'substantial and compelling reasons'. However, the 'formulae'
of'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficiently cogent
reasons' and 'strong reasons' and the search for them were abandoned
as a result of the pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh &
H
J

CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 645

Ors. v. State of Rajasthan. In Sanwat Singh's case, this Court harked A
back to the principles enunciated by the Privy Council in Shea Swamp
v. Emperor and re-affirmed those principles. After Sanwat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan, this Court has consistently recognised the right
of the Appellate Court to review the entire evidence and to come to
its own conclusion, bearing in mind the considerations mentioned by
the Privy Council in Sheo Swamp's case. Occasionally phrases like B
'manifestly illegal', 'grossly unjust', have been used to describe the
orders of acquittal which warrant interference. But, such expressions
have been used more, as flourishes of language, to emphasise the
reluctance of the Appellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal
than to curtail the power of the Appellate Court to review the entire C
evidence and to come to its own conclusion. In some cases
(Ramabhupala Reddy & Ors. v. State ofA. P., AIR (1971) SC 460, Bhim
Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1974) SC 286, it has
been said that to the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh 's case may
be added the further principle that "if two reasonable conclusions can
be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate D
Court should not disturb the finding of the Trial Court". This, of
course, is not a new principle. It stems out of the fundamental principle
of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit
of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly
balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily E
concede the existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote
possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person
to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of
views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly
reasonably probable as that against him. If the preponderance of
probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not F
entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore,
essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must
be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused
person may claim, must be reasonable". (emphasis supplied)

37. In Ramesh Babu/al Doshi v. State ofGujarat, [1996] 9 SCC 225, this G
Court said; "While setting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court
is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the
trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably
unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the
negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal
cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-
andJhen only-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions". In
Alarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, [2002] 3 SCC 57, referring to earlier
decisions, the Court stated; "The paramount consideration of the court should
be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise
B from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.
In a case where the trial court has taken a view based upon conjectures and
hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court
to re-appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of
ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not.
C Probable view taken by the trial court which may not be disturbed in the
appeal is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence.
Only because the accused has been acquitted by the trial court, cannot be
made a basis to urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not
disturb such a finding''.

D 38. In Bhagwan Singh & Ors. v. State of MP., [2002] 4 SCC 85, the trial
Court acquitted the accused but the High Court convicted them. Negativing
the contention of the appellants that the High Court could not have disturbed
the findings of fact of the trial Court even if that view was not correct, this
Court observed;

E "We do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants that under Section 3-78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
the High Court could not disturb the finding of facts of the trial court
even if it found that the view taken by the trial court was not proper.
On the basis of the pronouncements of this Court, the settled position
of law regarding the powers of the High Court in an appeal against
F
an order of acquittal is that the Court has full powers to review the
evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based and generally it
will not interfere with the order of acquittal because by passing an
order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused is reinforced. The golden thread which runs through the web
G of administration of ju'stice in criminal case 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. Such is not a
jurisdiction limitation on the appellate court but a Judge made guidelines
for circumspection. The paramount consideration of the court is to
H
I

CHANDRAPPA v. STATE or KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 647

ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided. A miscarriage of justice A
which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the
conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken
a view ignoring the admissible evidence, a duty is cast upon the High
Court to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes
of ascertaining as to whether all or any of the accused has committed
any offence or not". B
39. In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
y Hyderabad, [2002] 6 SCC 470, this Court said; "Doubtless the High Court in
appeal either against an order of acquittal or conviction as a court of first
appeal has full power to review the evidence to reach its own independent
conclusion. However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or C
merely because one other view is possible, because with the passing of an
order .of acquittal presumption of inn decree in favour of the accused gets
reinforced and strengthened. The High Court would not be justified to interfere
with order of acquittal merely because it feels th1.t sitting as a trial court would
have proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on the High Court while D
reversing an order of acquittal to examine anti discuss the reasons given by
.. ' the trial court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If the
High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious
infirmity".

40. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath Jha, [2003] 12 SCC 606, this E
Court observed; "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 F
-~ 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, G
a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate 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".

41. Recently, in Kallu v. State ofMP., [2006] IO SCC 313: AIR 2006 SC
H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power
of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing
appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to
review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an
order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the
judgriient of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is
B reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court
merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear
in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and
the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides
to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the
C trial court". (emphasis supplied)
. 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;

(I) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and
D reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded;
' ~

' (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction
'I
or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court
on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
E 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
F against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of
\.
'flourishes of language' to emphasize 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 'llind that in case of
G 'lj acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence 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,
H

',.
CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [THAKKAR, J.] 649
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
A
(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.

43. Applying the above principles to the case on hand, we are of the
considered view that the learned counsel for the accused is right in submitting B
that the High Court ought not to have disturbed an order of acquittal recorded
by the trial Court. For acquitting the accused and extending them the benefit
of doubt, the trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to examine
certain persons who could have unfolded the genesis of the prosecution
case. The trial Court indicated that the root cause of the quarrel was refusal C
to exchange copper vessel (Kolaga) to Nagraj, winner of the draw, but he was
not examined. Likewise, Krishnaiah, son of Oblaiah, who accompanied injured
(deceased) Anjaniappa to the hospital, was not brought before the Court.
Though it is in evidence that Accused No. 1 Chandrappa was injured and was
also taken to the hospital alongwith Anjaninappa, some witnesses had denied
the fact as to injuries sustained by the Accused No. I. The High Court did D
.. not give much weight to the said circumstance observing that Accused No .
I was neither examined by a doctor nor a cross-complaint was filed by him
against the prosecuting party. In our view, the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants is well founded that it is not material whether
Accused No. 1 had or had not filed a complaint or he was or was not examined· E
by a doctor, but the fact that even though it was the case of prosecution that
Accused No. 1 was injured during the course of incident, prosecution
witnesses tried to suppress that fact which would throw doubt as to the
correctness of the case or the manner in which the incident had happened.
The trial Court had also stated that it was unnatural that the prosecution
witnesses and deceased Anjaninappa could have goni;: to Hanumanthapura F
Bypass at about 9 .30 p.m. when a shorter route was available for going to
their destination. The trial Court observed that there was inconsistency in
prosecution evidence as to availability of electric light at the time of incident.
The Court also noted that the knife produced before the Court as mudamal
article was not the same which was used by Accused No. 8 for inflicting G
injury on the deceased. There was also no consistency in evidence as to
injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses.

44. In our view, if in the light of above circumstances, the trial Court
felt that the accused could get benefit of doubt, the said view cannot be held
to be illegal, improper or contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of the H
-.-

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A opinion that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of appellate Court are as
wide as that of the trial Court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider
the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own
conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the present case, the view taken by
the trial court for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible. On the
basis of evidence, therefore, at the most, it can be said that the other view
B was equally possible. But it is well-established that if two views are possible
on the basis of 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. In this case, a possible view on the evide11ce of prosecution had been ,.1
taken by the trial Court which ought not to have been disturbed by the
C appellate Court. The decision of the appellate Court (High Court), therefore,
is liable to be set aside.

45. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is,
accordingly, allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the
High Court is set aside and the order of acquittal passed by the Additional
D Sessions Judge, Tumkur is restored. The appellants are hereby acquitted of
the offences with which they were charged. They are ordered to be set at
liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in any other case. , '

B.S. Appeal allowed.

.,

(