Holding

An appellate court cannot set aside a conviction without a reasoned analysis of the evidence; the High Court's acquittal was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

Summary

The accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurusamy Naicker. The Madras High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused, but did so without analysing the trial court's evidence or providing reasons for rejecting the conviction. The Supreme Court held that such a bare acquittal order was impermissible, as appellate courts must record reasons and examine the material evidence before overturning a conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal with proper consideration of the evidence. The order emphasized the necessity of reasoned judgments in criminal appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can acquit the accused without analysing the evidence and without giving reasons for departing from the trial court's findings.
Whether the acquittal order is vitiated for lack of reasons and must be set aside.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

IPC 302IPC 34AcquittalAppellate reviewReasoned orderEvidence analysisCriminal lawSupreme Court of IndiaRemand

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 351

G. VIVEKANANDAN A
v.
SRIRAMULU & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2003
FEBRUARY 12. 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
s. 302134 - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High c
Court - Held: The acquittal order, since was passed without
analysis of evidence and without indicating basis for differing
with conviction order, matter remitted to High Court for disposal
afresh.

~
Appellant accused was convicted u/s. 302/34 IPC. D
)'
The conviction order was reversed by High Court. Hence
the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: High Court has practically disposed of the E
criminal appeal without analyzing the evidence and
without indicating any basis as to why the view expressed
... by the trial court cannot be maintained. High Court has
"
not discussed the evidence. No reason ,has been
indicated as to why the detailed analysis done by the trial F
court deserved to be upset. The conclusions are factually
incorrect. So far as the date on which the special report
reached the Magistrate is concerned, the Judicial
Magistrate has put his signature to have received the
document at about 7.45 a.m. on 25.5.1997. But in the seal G
.... . of the court, the date is differently shown. Nevertheless
date is recorded by the Magistrate to be 25.5.1997. The
High Court also doubted the lodging of the FIR at the time
of the claim. [Paras 8 and 6] [358-C; 357-E, F, G, H]
351 H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ~ ..
No. 300 of 2003
From the final Judgement and Order dated 8.2.2002 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.
B 273 of 1999.
V. Krishnamurthy and R. Shunmugasundram,·Siddhartha
Dave, VijayThakur, Senthil Jagadeesan, V. Ramasubramanian
and P.N. Ramalingam, P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, R.V. -~
Kameshwaran, V. Vasudevan, Prashnath P., T. Harish Kumar,
C R. Nedumaran, S. Thanajayan and K.V. Bharathi ·upadhyaya,
with them for the appearing parties.·· ·

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

DR.. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
D ,,...
\,(
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment.of a Divisi.on
.bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the
accused persons who faced trial for alleged cqmmission of
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
E the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar had held the
respondent accused persons guilty for causing the death of one
_., ..,
Gurusamy Naicker (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
on 25.~.1997 while he was sleeping in front of a shop. ·
F
2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

Subbura} (PW1 ), Vivekanandan (PW2) a·re brothers and
sons of the deceased. Gopaiakrishnasamy (PW5) is the brother
of the deceased. Rajavelusamy (A3) and Vasudevan (A4) are
G
brothers. There is a Hir)du Primary School in S ..Thiruven- \.
katapuram which belonged to the Kammavar community. "
Venkatasamy (PW 7) has beeh the administrator of the school
for the past twenty years, as the President of the school by name
Rangasamy has not been there in the village for several years.
H
G. VIVEKANANDAN V. SRIRAMULU & ORS. 353
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]
.. Apart from the Pr~.sident and Administrator, the Committee A
consisted of seven members. One of the members by name
Thiruppathi passed away. Without the knowledge of the people
of th~t villag~d the accused grou~ .showing the 4 h accused as
1

President, 2 accused as Administrator and seven persons
including first accused as members registered as the members B
of the Association Committee in the office of the District
Registrar, Virudhunagar. Jayaveeran (PW15) the District
Registrar received the memorandum and bye-laws in this regard
and effected registration on 06.05.1997. Coming to know about
this, a meeting in the village was convened including P.Ws.7 c
and 8. The meeting was held on 15.05.1997 and about 200
persons participated in that meeting. It was resolved in that
meeting to elect an able administrator and in that meeting the
deceased Gurusamy was selected as the Administrator. In fact
_.,
in the meeting, apart from P.Ws. 3 and 5, the accused also
D
)' participated. In the said meeting, the accused raised an objection.
But however, the same was overruled and it was resolved to
register on 27 .05.1997 the name of the deceased Gurusamy
Naicker as Administrator and this provoked the accused.
On 28.03.1997 at about 11.00 p.m., 1st and 3rd accused E
and 7 others attacked PW.13 in the hotel belonging to the
deceased. The deceased and one Veerasamy pacified the
accused and others. PW 13 lodged a complaint before the
Police in that regard. After investigation, Police filed charge sheet
against A 1 and others, in which the deceased Guruswamy F
Naicker was cited as a witness. Thus, the accused had a
grievance against the deceased.

On 23.05.1997 at about 10.00 p.m., all the four accused
went to the hotel of the deceased Guruswamy Naicker. But the
.. _.,
deceased was not there. The accused then told PW 1 and PW2 G
who were present in the shop to tell the deceased not to take
charge in the School administration, and that if he does so, he
will not be allowed to live. When the deceased Guruswamy
Naicker returned, both P.Ws.1 and 2 informed him about the
threat by the accused. The deceased replied to PWs.1 and 2 H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A by saying that when something good is done to village, there is -i •
bound to be some opposition and one should not mind this and
pacified his sons viz. PWs.1 and 2.
On 24.05, 1997 at about 11 p.m. P Ws.3 and 4 were talking
to the deceased about School administration and thereafter the
B deceased went to sleep near the well situated South-West of
the hotel. Along with the deceased, PWs 3 and 4 also left. As it
was late by then, PWs.3 and 4 decided to stay there itself. The
deceas~d then went and slept in front of the Shop known as
.,
Surya Saloon and Nandini Tailors, belonging to his brother PW5,
c PVVs. 3 and 4 went to the terrace of the Surya Saloon and slept
there.
At about 3.45 a.m. on 25.05.1997 PWs.1and 2 for the
purpose of opening the hotel, were making preparations by
cleaning the hotel. At that time, all the four accused came there
D
and questioned them about the whereabouts of the deceased. >-- . ...
A1 was having M0-1 Aruval with him whileA-2 was having MO
2. Seeing this, PWs.I and 2 got scared and told the accused
that the deceased was out of station. Then third accused saying
that the deceased should be there only and that his story can be
E finished proceeded towards west and marched ahead to the
place towards south to reach the place where the deceased
was sleeping. PWs.1 and 2 fearing that the accused would finish
off the deceased, followed the accused by shouting. When the '"
accused reached the deceased, A-3 caught hold of the legs of
F the deceased and A-4 uttered the words, "cut and kill him",
whereupon A-1 with MO I aruval in his hands cut on the left side
of the neck of the deceased. Thereafter, A 2 with M0-2
aruval also cut on the .left side of the neck of the deceased.
PVVs.3 and 4 who were sleeping on the terrace of the Surya
G Saloon, hearing the noise made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 got up and
~

also witnessed the attack on the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4 on
seeing the attack on the deceased, shouted, "why are you cutting "'"
and killing him". The accused then threatened PWs. 3 and 4 not
to come near and in view of that PWs 3 and 4 did not proceed
H further. Thereafter accused left with weapons. At the time of
G. VIVEKANANDAN V. SRIRAMULU & ORS. 355
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

.... occurrence, electric mercury lights were burning both on the west A
and south of the Alagarraja Textile Mill. There was also a light
burning in the pial where the deceased was sleeping.
After the accused left, PWs. 1 to 4 went near the deceased
and they saw the deceased had no life, Thereafter, PW1 went
to the village and informed him that PW 5 and both of them went B
back to the scene of occurrence. PWs.1 and 5 saw the
deceased lying dead with injuries on his beck. Thereafter, PWs.
1 and 5 proceeded in a two wheeler to Keelarajakulareman
Police Station and reached there at 4.45 pm and gave complaint
to Sub Inspector of Police (P.W16). The complaint was reduced c
to writing by the Head Constable and the same was read over
to PW1 and after ascertaining the correctness, his signature
was obtained. In the said complaint Ex.P-1, PW5 also signed.
Sub Inspector of Police (PW 16), on the basis of the said
_..._ complaint registered a case in Crime No.169 of 1997 and o·
).'
prepared printed Fl.R. Ex.P19. PW.16 thereafter telephonically
informed the Inspector of Police P.W.17 about the incident. The
printed FIR along with the complaint was sent to the Court of
Judicial Magistrate and copies thereof were sent to his superiors.
Inspector of Police (PW 17) proceeded to the scene of E
occurrence and reached there at 6.00 a.m in the morning. Copy
of the FIR, was received by him at the scene of occurrence,
.. Ex.P.6 is the observation mahazar prepared by him and the
same was attested by Village Administrative Officer (PW6) and
Thalayari Guncisekaran. A sketch Ex.P.20 was also prepared F
by the Inspector of Police. Inquest over the body of the deceased
was held between 6.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. And Ex.P-21 is the
inquest report. During inquest, Inspector of Police examined
PWs. 1 to 3 and Rajammal and others. After inquest, MOs. 3, 4,
8, 9, 10 and 11 were seized under mahazar Ex. P7. The body of G
"" -<I the deceased was then sent to the Government Hospital with a
requisition to conduct post mortem.

Dr. Bharathilakslmi (P.W.11) at Goverment Hospital,
Rajapalayam, on receipt of requisition Ex.P-13 commenced
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A autopsy on the body of the deceased at about 3.00 PM in the .. ~
afternoon. Ex.P-14 is the post mortem certificate issued by the
Doctor. In the said certificate, the Doctor had noted the following:
"Injuries : 1. Cu~ injury of about 9 ems extend from 2 cm
away from the angle of the mouth (left) to 3 cm below the ear
B
lobule (left) horizontally placed, depth 1 cm margins regular and
tapering with fracture of the angle of the mandible ..·

2. Cut injuN of about 20 ems extend from middle of the
neck back side (left) to the middle of the chin and first injury
c merging with this wound margin regular and tapering depth upto
vartebral bone, wound horizontally placed - skin, muscles and
vessels hence all are cut with fracture of the C.2 vertebrae body.
No blood cloths seen. There was no fracture in skull. There was
no injury in the Brain and its colour was pale.
D
There was fracture of C-2 Vertebrae in Spinal Column. ~

Hyoid:
"
Intact. Lung : PaLE NO RIB FRACTURE, Heard:
E Pale, Chambers empty, Liver, Spleen: Pale.
Stomach: Pales Bladder: 100 ml. of urine".
The Doctor had opined that the deceased would appear Jt "'-·
to have died of shock and haemorrhage and death would have
F occurred 10 to 18 hours prior·to post mortem.
On information, the Inspector of Police arrested all the four
accused on 26.05.1997 at about 2.00 p.m., at the place called
Sevelmedu Otrangadu in the presence of PW9 and PW 12. On
arrest, accused 1 and 2 independently gave confessional
G
statements. Ex.P22 is the admissible portion of the confession
statement given by A1 while Ex.P.23 is the admissible portion
,... ..
of the c.onfession statement
, given by A2 Pursuant to the
,

confession statement, A2 took the police party and the witnesses
and produced MO 2 aruval from a thorny bush at a place called
H
- G. V!VEKANANDAN V. SRIRAMULU & ORS. 357
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

Otrangadu and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P A
24. On the same day, at about 6.15 p.m., A-1 produced M0-1
aruval and the same was recovered. Both the mahazars were
attested by Village Administrative Officer (PW 9) and Thalayari.
The Inspector of Police proceeded with the investigation and
examined the witnesses on various dates. The statements of B
PWs. 1 to 4 were recorded by P.W.10 Judicial· Magistrate,
Srivivilliputhur and the same are marked as Exs to P2 to P5.
The material objects were then sent for chemical analysis.
Exs.P.28 and P29 are the chemical analyst's report while Ex.P
30 is the Serologist's report. The Inspector of Police after c
completing investigation, filed his report on 7. 7 .1997 under
Section 302 read with Section 34 and 109 IPC.
As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was
held, where the accused persons were held guilty. Questioning
~
the conviction an appeal was filed by the respondents which as D
Ill; )' noted above directed acquittal.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel forthe appellant-
informant submitted that the High Court was not justified in
directing acquittal. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 has been
discarded without indicating any reason. It was also pointed E
out that there is no delay in dispatching to Magistrate (Ex.19).
..,... . 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment.
6. It is seen that the High Court has not discussed the F
evidence. No reason has been indicated as to why the detailed
analysis done by the Trial Court deserved to be up set. The
conclusions are factually incorrect. So far as the date on which
the special report reached the Magistrate is concerned it is to
be noted that the Judicial Magistrate has put his signature to G
·1
'I have received the document at about 7.45 a.m. on 25.5.1997.
But in the seal of the Court the date is differently shown.
Nevertheless date is recorded by the Magistrate to be
25.5.1997. The High Court also doubted the lodging of the FIR
at the time of the claim. H
'L
r
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
f-
':·
A 7. Opposing the appeal, learned counsel for the accused .. #"-
I
submitted that since there was unexplained factor of delay, the ~~
High Court was justified in directing acquittal. It is· stated that
the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 do not inspire confidence and, t=
therefore, the High Court has rightly discarded the evidence [
B brought on record.
·~ ~
8. We do not think it is necessary to analyse the various
aspects involved in detail. It is seen that the High Court has .,._
~-
'

practically disposed of the criminal appeal without analyzing the ,..__
evidence and without indicating any basis as to why the view
C expressed by the trial court cannot be maintained. In the r
aforesaid circumstances we remit the matter to the High Court
for fresh disposal in accordance with law. We request the High
Court to dispose of the appeal as early as practicable.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
D ,.. ?--
\
~·
•
,•
l·K.K.T Appeal disposed of. ;...
,.._

1