# [1975] 1 S.C.R. 673

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 673
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-08-09
- **Bench:** H.R. Khanna, Y.V. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1975-1-s-c-r-673-6221
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure S. 417 ~Appeal under Practice and Procedur~ -
Scope of power of High Court to review trial Court's Judgment.
The appe11ants were tried for the offence of murder but were acquitted on the
ground that there was no reliable and convincing evidence against them. The High
Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted and sentenced them.
On the question whether the High Court was in error in reversing the finding of
acquittal recorded by Sessions Judge.
Allowing the appeal.
HELD : The High Court was in error in reversing the judgment of the trial,
court. The Sessions Judge had given convincing and cogent reasons in support
of his conclusions. The view taken by him can, by no means, be described as unreasonable. Even if the High Court felt that on the material on record a different
view was
also poSsible, that fact did not justify interference with the judgment
of acquittal. If two conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on
record the High Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded'
by the trial court. [6;9-DJ
In an appeal under s. 417 Cr. P.C. against an order of acquittal, the High Court
has full p0wer to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was.
founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the 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, but in exercising the power conferred by
the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give
proper weight and consideration to such matters as (I) the view of the trial judge
as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused, a pr~umption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has betn
acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding orfact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The
High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the court below
io support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgment
which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. Further, if two conclusionscan be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It would follow as a coroUary from -
that, that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused was not unreasonable the occasion for the reversal of that view would not arise. [678. H 679C]
CR·M1NAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 16
ofl971.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 15th December, 1970
of the Kerala High Court in Cr!. A.No. 256 of 1970.
K. R. Kunhirama and A, S. Nambiar, for the appellants.
K. T, Harindernath and A. G. Puddssery, for the respondent.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
!
•
H
SETHU MADHAVAN NAIR & ORS.
1'.
THE STATE OF KERALA
August 9, 1974
[H.R. KHANNA, AND Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.j
Code of Criminal Procedure S. 417 ~Appeal under Practice and Procedur~ -
Scope of power of High Court to review trial Court's Judgment.
The appe11ants were tried for the offence of murder but were acquitted on the
ground that there was no reliable and convincing evidence against them. The High
Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted and sentenced them.
On the question whether the High Court was in error in reversing the finding of
acquittal recorded by Sessions Judge.
Allowing the appeal.
HELD : The High Court was in error in reversing the judgment of the trial,
court. The Sessions Judge had given convincing and cogent reasons in support
of his conclusions. The view taken by him can, by no means, be described as unreasonable. Even if the High Court felt that on the material on record a different
view was
also poSsible, that fact did not justify interference with the judgment
of acquittal. If two conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on
record the High Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded'
by the trial court. [6;9-DJ
In an appeal under s. 417 Cr. P.C. against an order of acquittal, the High Court
has full p0wer to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was.
founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the 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, but in exercising the power conferred by
the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give
proper weight and consideration to such matters as (I) the view of the trial judge
as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused, a pr~umption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has betn
acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding orfact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The
High Court should also take into account the reasons given by the court below
io support of its order of acquittal and must express its reasons in the judgment
which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. Further, if two conclusionscan be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It would follow as a coroUary from -
that, that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused was not unreasonable the occasion for the reversal of that view would not arise. [678. H 679C]
CR·M1NAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 16
ofl971.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 15th December, 1970
of the Kerala High Court in Cr!. A.No. 256 of 1970.
K. R. Kunhirama and A, S. Nambiar, for the appellants.
K. T, Harindernath and A. G. Puddssery, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA J.
Sethu Madhavan Nair and 12 others were tried in
the court of the learned Sessions Judge Palghat for offences under
sections J48 and 302 or in the alternative under section 302 read with,
'374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 1 S.C.R.
section 149 Indian Po1<al Code and were acquitted. On appeal by
the State, the Kerala High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal
and convicted the accused under section 302 read with section 149
Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The 13 accused thereafter filed the present appeal against
the judgment of the High Court.
Ananthakrishnan deceased was a la11downer of village Thanni-
"cri. He was also Secretary of the Karshaka Samajam, an organization of landowners. The accused arc workers of the local Marxist
·Communist Party. About one or two months before the present
occurrence, an agitation had been started by Karshaka Thozhilali
Union, which was affiliated to the Marxist CommuP.ist Party, for The
.enhancement of wages payable to agricultural labourers. As a result
of that agitation, the landowners found difficulty in conducting their
agricultural operation>. The relations between the landowners and
the Marxist Communist Party c:insequently became strained. On
March 12, 1969, it is stated, four of the accused along with some
.others obstructed the workers of Ananthakrishnan deceased when
>those workers were transporting motnurc in a cart to his field. The
·deceased filed a complaint under sections 148 and 341 lndian Penal
Code bofore the District Magistrate against those persons. As there
was strike and picketing by the Marxist workers, Ananthakrishnan
.deceased and his brother VeJunni (PW I) addressed an application
to the District Collector on April 11, 1969 requesting that police
protection might be given to willing workers and others whom they
might employ from neighbouring areas for agricultural work. A
writ petition was also filed in the High Court by the deceased for
.directing the authorities to provide protection to him and his wcrkmen in carrying on agricultural work. On April 18, 1969 Sub Inspector Damodara Menon (PW 12) went to the village of the parties to
settle a dispute between the deceased and the members of the Marxist
Communist Party. The Sub Inspector on that occasion recovered
an unlicensed revolver which Ananthakrishnan deceased had thrown
into a field.
A case was thereupon registered against the deceased.
Ananthakrishnan deceased, according further to the prosecution
.case, sold 50 Palmyrah trees for Rs. 3,000 to PW Krishnan of village
Parli. Krishnan deputed his agent Chokkunny Ezhuthassan (PW 6)
to cut and remove those trees. On April 18, 1969 Chokkunny Ezhuthassan accompanied by some wood cutters went to cut and remove
the aforesaid trees but they were prevented from doing so by the
Harij:i.ns as according to those Harijans a bund ha<l been Uecl01red on
that day in connection with the agitation started by the Karshaka
Thozhilali Union. Chokkunny was also told to come after two days
for cutting the trees.
On the morning of April 20, 1969, Ananthakrishnan deceased
accompanied by his elder brother Velunni PW went to the house of
Joy (PW 5) as a function had been arranged at that house in connection
·with the sending of Joy's wife for delivery. After the tea party was
.over, Ananthakrishnan left Joy's house at about 10 a.m. saying that
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
'
B
.
•'
c
D
E
F
G
•
I
•
H
s. M. NAm v. KERALA (Khani1a, !.)
675
he wanted t·J soo whother the person to whom Palmyrah trees had
been sold had cn1m to cut those trees. Velunni continued to stay in
Joy's house. Shortly thereafter Krishnan (PW 2) came near Joy's
hous~ asking f0r · Ainnthakrishnan. Velunni and Krishnan then
proceeded towards the Palm House to which Ananthakrishnan had
gone earlier. At a distance of about 200 yards fr0m the Palm Hou~e
near the eastern gale. Velunni and Krishnan saw a large number of
persons holding sticks. On seeing those persons, Velunni and Krish.
n~n went t-0 the western side of the Palm House
On arrival there,
Vclunn.i and Krishnan saw the 13 accused, who were all armed with
bamb:io sticks resembling police lathis. beating Ananthakrishnan
with their sticks. Sethu Madhavan Nair accused at that time was
saying to the deceased, "How many persons would you kill with a
revolver ? Would you riot withdraw the case when asked ?". Velunni
and Krishnan saw the occurrence whilo hiding themselves behind a fence at a distance of about 35 feet towards the west of the
place of occurrence. After the beating had continued for six or seven
minutes, S:thu Madhavan Nair accused cried a halt saying that Ananthakrishn1n was dead. The accused then left that place. After the
departure of the accused, Velunni and Krishnan PWs went to the sp0t
where An~n·.hakrishnan was lying and found that he was dead. Velunni
and Krishnan then went to Menankolambu. at a distance of four or
five furlongs from the place of occurrence. Krishnm stayed there,
while Vclunni went from that place to Koduvayur. Hiring a taxi in
Koduvayur, Velunni went to police station Kasaba. at a distance of 8
kilometres from the place of occurrence, and lodged there report P-1
at 2 p.m.
After the registration of the case, Jnspec.or Karunakarn (PW 13)
went to the place of occurrence and reached there at 3 ·30 p. m. The
Inspector prepared the inquest report. The dead body was thereafter
sent to Palghat where post mortem examination was performed by
Dr. V. S, Chandran at 9 ·20 a. m. on April 21, 1969. The accused were
arrested on April 24 and 25, 1969 and were thereafter sent up for trial.
The accused in their statements under section 342 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations against them
regarding their participation in the present occurrence. No evidence
was produced in defence.
The learned Sessions Judge, as mentioned earlier. acquitted the
·accused on the grnuna that there was no reliable and covincingevidence
against them. On appeal the High Court disagreed with the Sessions
Judge and came to the conclusion that the 13 accused were guilly of
the offence under section 302 read with section 149 fodian Penal Code .
ln appeal before us Mr. K R. Kunhirama Menon on behalf of the
appellants has assailed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
has contended that it is of a most unsatisfactory character for founding
thereon the conviction of the accused. It has been further urged by
Mr. Menon that the High Court was in error in reversing the finding
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 S.C.R.
of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge. As against that, Mr.
A
K. T. Harindra Nath has canvassed for the correctneos of the judgment
of the High Court.
It cannot be disputed that a large number of injuries were caused
to An1nthakrishnan decoased on April 20, 1969 near the Palm
House as a result of which he died. Dr. Chandran who performed
post mortem examination on the body of Ananthakrishnan found five
B
incised wounds besides 8 contusions, two lacerated wounds and one
abrasion over the different parts of the body of the deceased. T~.e five
incised wounds \vere as un<ltT :
"1. An incised wound 3 cm x 5 cm x · 25 cm oblique
over the right parietal region.
2. An incised gapping wound 2 cm x
~· cm x ~ cm over
C
tte parieto occipital suture on the right.
3. An incised wound 4 cm x t cm antcrio posterior
over the posterior part over the right parietal region.
4. An incised wound 1 cm x !; cm x 5 cm just in front of
the pinna of the right ear directed downwards and forwards.
D
5.
An incised gapping wound 2 cm x I cm x I cm oblique
over tne right malar eminence,"
On dissection the doctor found that there was a transverse fracture
of the right zygomatic bone, a depressed stellate fracture of the ala
of the right temporal bone and a depressed fracture of the posterior
E
part of the right parietal bone. There was also a fracture of the right
humerus. The injuries, according to the doctor, were sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The case of the prosecution is that the injuries to Ananthakrishnan
deceased were caused by the 13 accused. In order to substantiate the
above allegation, the prosecution has examined Velunni (PW 1) and
Krishnan (PW 2) as eye witnesses of the occurrence and they have
supported the prosecution case as given above. It is upon the evidence
of these two eye witnesses that the High Court has based the conviction
of the accused. After having been taken through the evidence of
these two witnesses, we find the same to be far from convincing. We
are further of the view that the learned Sessions Judge gave cogent
grounds for rejecting the testimony of these witnessee. The High.
Court, in the circumstances, should not have reversed the well rearnned judgment of the trial court.
According to the two eye witnesses, each one of the accused at the
time of the occurrence was armed with bamboo sticks resembling
police lathis and they caused injuries to the deceaeed with those sticks.
Dr. Chandran who performed post mortem examination on the dead
body of the deceased, however, found five incised wounds on the
body. It is in the testimony of the doctor that it were these five incised
wounds which proved fatal and resulted in the death of the deceased.
F
G
H
.. '
-l
' •
..
....
l
•
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
s. M. NAm v. KERALA (Khanna, !.)
677
Although Dr. Chandran has added that those incised wounasr could [
have been caused with sticks. he. admits in cross-examinaticn that all
the five were clean pucca incised wounds. Dr. Chandran expressed
his disagreement with the view that an injury caused on the bony
part of the body with blunt type weapon could not cause a clean pucca
incised wound. The learned Sessions Judge who w•s of the view that
the five incised wounds had been caused bv sharp edged weaprn rejected this part of the statement of the doctor and relied upon the following observations on page 225 of Modi's "Medical ·Jurisprudence
and Toxicology, Seventeenth Editio11 :
·
"Occasionally, on wounds produced by a blunt weapon or
by a fall the skin splits and may look like incised wounds when
inflicted on tense structures covering the bones, such as the scalp,
eyebrow, i!liac crest, shin, perineum etc., or by a fall on the knee
or elbow when the limb is flexed. But the edges of such wounds
will be found irregular with a certain amount of bruising,
and small strands of tissue may be seen at the bottcm.
bridging across the margins, if examined with a hand lens. In the
case of wounds of the scalp the hair bulbs will be found crushed,
if they are inflicted with a blunt weapon, but will be found cut,
if produced by a cutting weapon.''
In the light of the above observation, we find no infirmity in the finding
of the learned Sessions Judge that the five clean pucca incisrd injuries
which were found on the body of the deceased had been caused by sharpedged weapon and not by sticks. Dr. Chandran admits that in case
the above mentioned injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon,
the same must have been a heavy weapon like a chopper as the injuries had resulted in the fracture of the underlying bones .
As regards the identity of the culprits, Velunni PW has stated that
be identified the culprits by looking at their faces during the course of
the occurrence. Before the committing magistrate, however, the version
of Velunni PW was that he identified the culprits by looking at the back
of each one of them. Velunni also added in his statement before the
committing magistrate that he could only see the back of each one of
the accused at the time of the occurrence. So for as Krishnan (P W2)
is concerned he deposed that he bad known only two of the accused for
five or six years before the present occurrence but did not know the remaining 11 accused. Krishnan added that he had seen those 11 accuse\!
once before the present occurrence when he called at the office of the
Communist Party. Krishnan was then confronted with his statement
made before the police. According to that statement, Krishaan had no
acquainta?ce with the persons who c~used !niurie~ to the deceased. No
identificat10n parade was also held m which .Knshnan .was_ asked to
identify any of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge m view of the
above came to the conclusion that the evidence regarding tle identity
of the culprits was not satisfactory. We find nothing unreasonable
in the above view.
The learned Sessions Judge also expressed the opinion that the assault on the deceased took place not at 11 a.m. as stated by Velunni
11-MIBS Sup. CI/75
678
SUl'REME COURT REPORTS
[1975) 1 S,C.R.
and Krisnan PWs but before 9-30 or in any case before IO a. m.
Reliance in this context was placed upon the evidence of Chokkunny
(PW 6). Chokkunny h1d been deputed by Krishnan to take labourers
and get cut Palmyrah trees which had been purchased by Krishnan[ rom
Ananthakrishnan. Chokkunny has deposed that at about 10 a.m.
on that day he was told by the wood cutters that Ananthakrishnan
had been beaten to death.
Chokkunny was also confronted
with his statement made
before
the police. The learned Sessions Judge concluded from that statement that Chokkunny had
learnt about the death of the deceased from others at about 9.30 a.m.
The High Court took the view that the above mentioned time did not
relate to the moment when Chokkunny received information of the death
of the deceased but to the time when the deceased had gone alone towards the place of occurrence. The police statement of Chokkunny
in this respect is not very clear. Be that as it may, the fact remians
that Chokkunny in his deposition in court has deposed that it was at
ab:rnt 1 O a.m. that he learnt of the death of Ananthakrishnan deceased.
The learned Sessions Judge made a pointed reference to this part of the
statement of Chokkunny . The High Court in the course of its judgment,
however, did not deal with this aspect of the matter. The learned Sessions Judge also sought support for the conclusion that the occurrence
bad taken place before 9-30 or I 0 a.m. from the evidence of Dr.
Chandran. According to the doctor, the time which elapsed between
th' death of the deceased and the post mortem examination was 24 to
36 hours. The post mortem examination was performed at 9 20 a.m.
on April 21, 1969. In coming to that opinion, the doctor referred to the
fact that he noticed blisters and peeling all over the back of the trunk.
The doctor also noticed signs of decomposition. In view of the testimony of Chokkunny and Dr. Chandran PWs, we are of the opinion that
the learned Sessions Judge had reasonable ground for arriving at the
· conclusion that the assault on the deceased took place not at 11 a.m
but earlier than IO a.m. and that Velunni and Krishnan did not witness
the occurrence when they arrived near the Palm House at about 11 a.mo
In declining to place much reliance upon the evidence of Velunni PW,
the trial judge also referred to the fact that the aforesaid witness had
enmity with a large number of the accused. Another circumstance
which also affectea the veracity of the statement of Velonny PW was
that thJugh he disclosed in court that only the 13 accused had caused
illjuries to the deceased, the version given by him in the first information report was that the injuries had been caused by others besides
the 13 accused,
In an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
against an order of acquittal, the High Court has full power to review
at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and
to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence th• order of acquittal
should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power
unless it be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the
power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon
fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to
such matters as (1) the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of
A
B
..
c
D
E
F
G
•
H
A
II
c
D
,1
t
S· M. NAIR v. KERALA (Khanna, !.)
679
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
real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court
disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had tho advantage
of seeing the witnesses. The High Court should also take into account
the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal
and must express its reasons in the judgment which lead it to hold that
the acquittal is not justified. Further, if two conclusions can be based
upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It would follow as a
corollary from that that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting
the accused is not unreasonable, the occasion for the reversal of that
view would not arise.
Keeping in mind the principles enunciated above, we are of the
opinion that there was no sufficient ground for the High Court to
reverse the judgment of the trial court whereby it acquitted, the 13
accused. Learned Sessions Judge had given convincing and cogent
reasons in support of the conclusions at which he arrived. The view
taken by him can by no meane be described as unreasonable. Even if
the High Court felt that on the material on record, a different view
was also possible that fact, in our opinion, did not justify interference
with the judgment of acquittal. If two conclusi6ns can be reached on
the basis of the evidence on record, the High Court, as already mentioned above, should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court.
We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Judges of the High
Court were in error in reversing the judgment of the trial court whereby it had acquitted the accused. we accordingly accept the appeal,
set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial
,court whereby the accused had been acquitted.
J'.B.R.
Appeal allowed.