Supreme Court Reportable Cases: Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v.State of Gujarat(Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2019)10 April 2024[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.][2024] 4 S.C.R. 322 : 2024 INSC 295: The Supreme Court observed that the Appellate Court cannot overturn an order of acquittal merely on the ground that another view is possible.

Facts Points:

1. The appellants (father and son) were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The incident occurred on 17th September 1996, where the appellants allegedly assaulted one Punjabhai (the deceased) with pipes and sticks, leading to his death.
3. The Sessions Court acquitted the appellants by a judgment dated 5th July 1997.
4. The State of Gujarat preferred an appeal against the acquittal before the High Court.
5. The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 14th December 2018, converted the acquittal into a conviction for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 323 of the IPC.
6. PW-1 Danabhai, the brother of the deceased, was informed about the assault by one Vajsurbhai.
7. PW-4 Karshanbhai, an eyewitness, claimed to have been present during the incident and sustained injuries.
8. There were inconsistencies between the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 regarding the presence of PW-4 at the time of the incident.
9. PW-4 admitted to having an ongoing land dispute with the appellants’ family.
10. The Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of PW-4 for various reasons, including the inconsistency with PW-5 Dr. Jagadishbhai’s statement.
11. The High Court relied on PW-4’s police statement and held that the appellants failed to adduce evidence to falsify the prosecution’s version.
12. The Supreme Court granted exemption to the second appellant from surrendering.
13. The Supreme Court continued the order granting exemption to the second appellant from surrendering.
14. The application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail by the first appellant was rejected by the Supreme Court.
15. The Supreme Court directed the present appeal to be listed for hearing.

Law Points including Both Parties’ Submissions:

1. The appellants’ counsel pointed out that the High Court erred in relying on PW-4’s police statement and erroneously put the burden on the appellants to prove their innocence.
2. The appellants’ counsel submitted that the High Court’s approach in dealing with an appeal against acquittal was completely erroneous.
3. The appellants’ counsel argued that the High Court did not find that the only possible view based on the evidence was that the guilt of the appellants had been proved.
4. The State counsel vehemently submitted that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court was duty-bound to reappreciate the evidence.
5. The State counsel argued that after finding PW-4’s evidence inspiring confidence, the High Court rightly interfered with the order of acquittal.
6. The Supreme Court observed that the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if satisfied that the only possible conclusion was the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court cannot overturn an order of acquittal merely on the ground that another view is possible.
8. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not address whether the Trial Court’s view was a plausible view based on the evidence.
9. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s finding on the burden of proof to be completely erroneous.
10. The Supreme Court held that unless there is a negative burden or reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden.
11. The Supreme Court observed that the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
12. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies between the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 regarding PW-4’s presence at the time of the incident.
13. The Supreme Court considered the prior enmity between PW-4 and the appellants’ family and PW-4’s failure to report the incident to the police.
14. The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court’s finding that PW-4’s evidence did not inspire confidence was a possible finding based on the evidence.
15. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason for the High Court to overturn the order of acquittal when the Trial Court’s findings were possible.

Judgement Points:

1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court.
2. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellants.
3. The Supreme Court restored the judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants.
4. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if satisfied that the only possible conclusion was the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. The Supreme Court observed that the Appellate Court cannot overturn an order of acquittal merely on the ground that another view is possible.
6. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not avert if the Trial Court’s view was a plausible view based on the evidence.
7. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ignored that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused.
8. The Supreme Court found the High Court’s finding on the burden of proof to be completely erroneous.
9. The Supreme Court held that unless there is a negative burden or reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden.
10. The Supreme Court observed that the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
11. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies between the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 regarding PW-4’s presence at the time of the incident.
12. The Supreme Court considered the prior enmity between PW-4 and the appellants’ family and PW-4’s failure to report the incident to the police.
13. The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court’s finding that PW-4’s evidence did not inspire confidence was a possible finding based on the evidence.
14. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason for the High Court to overturn the order of acquittal when the Trial Court’s findings were possible.
15. The Supreme Court cancelled the bail bonds of the second appellant and ordered the first appellant to be forthwith set at liberty unless required in another case.