Power of the Indian Supreme Court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal

The power of the Supreme Court to interfere with a judgmentJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order - CPC 2(9). It contains a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision - Order 20 Rule 4(2).  Section 354 of CrPC requires that every judgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Indian Supreme Court Decisions > Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts (Art 141 Indian Constitution) Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art 144) Supreme Court Network On Judiciary – Portal > Denning: “Judges do not speak, as do actors, to please. They do not speak, as do advocates, to persuade. They do not speak, as do historians, to recount the past. They speak to give Judgment. And in their judgments, you will find passages, which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature….” Law Points on Judgment Writing > The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges (State Bank of India and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Sood SC 2022) of acquittal-1958

The extent of the power of the Supreme Court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal was raised before us by the respondent’s counsel and it was contended that the jurisdictionJurisdiction Authority by which courts receive and decide cases. Limited Jurisdiction: the authority over only particular types of cases, or cases under a prescribed amount in controversy, or seeking only certain types of relief, the District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the first court to hear a case. exercised by this Court under Art. 136 was the same as that exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and reliance was placed on a minority judgment by Venkatarama Aiyar, J., in Aher Raja Khima vs. The State of Saurashtra (1955) 2 SCR 1285 where the learned judge after discussing the various Privy Council judgments and quoting a passage from the judgment of this court in Pritam Singh vs. The State (1950) SCR 453(B) observed:

“The preceding article referred to in the opening passage is clearly Article 134. Article 134(1) confers a right of appeal to this Court in certain cases, in terms unqualified, on questions both of fact and law, and if the scope of an appeal under Art. 136 is to be extended likewise to questions of fact, then Article 134(1) would become superfluous. It is obvious that the intention of the Constitution in providing for an appeal on facts under Art. 134(1)(a) and (b) was to exclude it under Art. 136, and it strongly supports the conclusion reached in Pritam Singh vs. The State (B) that like the Privy Council this Court would not function as a further court of appeal on facts in criminal cases.”

The State Govt. Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramakrishna Ganpatrao Limsey AIR 1954 SC 20 (C) was also referred to by counsel for the respondent and it was contended that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the order of the High Court merely on the ground that it took a different view of the facts. That was an appeal which had been brought on a certificate by the High Court and not by Special Leave of this Court. That judgment was considered by a Constitution Bench in State of Madras vs. Gurviah Naidu and Co. Ltd. (S) AIR 1956 SC 158(D) and S. R. Das, Acting C. J., delivering the judgment of the court pointed out that that was a decision of a bench of three judges and not of a Constitution Bench and the observation that there was no provision corresponding to S. 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code only emphasised that this Court should not in appeal by Special Leave interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court merely for correcting errors of fact or of law. Gurviah Naidu’s case (D) was an appeal against a judgment of acquittal and this court reversed the judgment saying:

“In our view, the High Court erred in holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their case and in acquitting the accused.”

This case negatives the contention that under Art. 136 interference by this Court with findings of High Courts in judgments of acquittal is not intended. Even in AIR 1954 SC 20 (C) Mahajan, J., was of the opinionOpinion A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court. In an appeal, multiple opinions may be written. The court’s ruling comes from a majority of judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the end result of the court but offers further comment possibly because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion. that the Supreme Court can interfere where the High Court “acts perversely or otherwise improperly or has been deceived by fraud.”

 In Pritam Singh vs. The State (B) Fazal Ali J., after a careful examination of Art. 136 along with the preceding articles stated the scope of the appeal under Art. 136 to be:

“Generally speaking, this court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.”

Even the Privy Council in laying down the permissible limits for review in criminal matters included things “So irregular or so outrageous as to shake the very basis of justice”. See Mohinder Singh vs. The King 59 Ind App 233 (E).

An instance of this principle is the decision of the Privy Council in Stephen Seneviratne vs. The King AIR 1936 PC 289 (F) which will be discussed later in this judgment and which has been approved of by this Court.

Interpreting the following words of S. 205 of the Government of IndiaIndia Bharat Varsha (Jambu Dvipa) is the name of this land mass. The people of this land are Sanatan Dharmin and they always defeated invaders. Indra (10000 yrs) was the oldest deified King of this land. Manu's jurisprudence enlitened this land. Vedas have been the civilizational literature of this land. Guiding principles of this land are : सत्यं वद । धर्मं चर । स्वाध्यायान्मा प्रमदः । Read more Act 1935 “any judgment, decree or final order of a court” and “it shall be the duty of every High Court in British India to consider in every case”, Lord Thankerton in King Emperor vs. Sibnath Bannerji 72 Ind app 241 (G) said:

“The purpose of the provision is to confer a right of appeal in every case that involves substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Act or of any Order in Council made thereunder.”

One of the questions for decision in that case was whether an appeal lay in cases of habeas corpus. Lord Thankerton there observed:

“In the absence of an express exception of habeas corpus cases, and having in view, the terms and purpose of the section, their Lordships are unable to limit the terms of the section by mere construction so as to exclude these cases from its operation.”

In Art. 136 the use of the words “Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India” show that in criminal matters no distinction can be made as a matter of construction between a judgment of conviction or acquittal. In Bhagwan Das vs. The State of Rajasthan, (S) AIR 1957 SC 589 (H) the following observation of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in Stephen Seneviratne vs. The King (F):

“………there are here no grounds on the evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 , taken as a whole, upon which any tribunal could properly as a matter of legitimate inference, arrive at a conclusion that the appellant was guilty……….”

was quoted with approval and after an examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction by the High Court under Art. 136. The question for decision in the present case is whether it falls within the limits laid down in the abovementioned cases. This court will not readily interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court but if the High Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly interference will be called for.

Ref: AIR 1958 SC 61 : (1958) SCR 580 : (1958) CriLJ SC 232