Supreme Court Reiterates Principles For Adjudicating A Challenge Against Acquittal Bolstered By Concurrent Findings

The Supreme Court has explained the principles underlining the exercise of power to adjudicate a challenge against acquittal bolstered by concurrent findings.

The Court was deciding a criminal appeal preferred against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which the acquittal was affirmed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “The instant case pertains to challenge against concurrent findings of fact favouring the acquittal of the respondent, it would be cogent to delve into an analysis of the principles underlining the exercise of power to adjudicate a challenge against acquittal bolstered by concurrent findings.”

The Bench, therefore, culled out the following broad principles –

i) Criminal jurisprudence emphasises on the fundamental essence of liberty and presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. This presumption gets emboldened by virtue of concurrent findings of acquittal. Therefore, this court must be extra-cautious while dealing with a challenge against acquittal as the said presumption gets reinforced by virtue of a well-reasoned favourable outcome. Consequently, the onus on the prosecution side becomes more burdensome pursuant to the said double presumption.

ii) In case of concurrent findings of acquittal, this Court would ordinarily not interfere with such view considering the principle of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India 1950, unless perversity is blatantly forthcoming and there are compelling reasons.

iii) Where two views are possible, then this Court would not ordinarily interfere and reverse the concurrent findings of acquittal. However, where the situation is such that the only conclusion which could be arrived at from a comprehensive appraisal of evidence, shows that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, then, notwithstanding such concurrent view, this Court would not restrict itself to adopt an oppugnant view.

iv) To adjudge whether the concurrent findings of acquittal are ‘perverse’ it is to be seen whether there has been failure of justice.

v) In situations of concurrent findings favoring accused, interference is required where the trial court adopted an incorrect approach in framing of an issue of fact and the appellate court whilst affirming the view of the trial court, lacked in appreciating the evidence produced by the accused in rebutting a legal presumption.

vi) Furthermore, such interference is necessitated to safeguard interests of justice when the acquittal is based on some irrelevant grounds or fallacies in re-appreciation of any fundamental evidentiary material or a manifest error of law or in cases of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice or the decision is manifestly unjust or where an acquittal which is fundamentally based on an exaggerated adherence to the principle of granting benefit of doubt to the accused, is liable to be set aside. Say in cases where the court severed the connection between accused and criminality committed by him upon a cursory examination of evidences.

Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli appeared on behalf of the appellant while AOR Supreeta Sharanagouda appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Brief Facts -

The appellant was the original complainant who claimed to know the respondent for the last six years and that he had borrowed Rs. 2 lakhs from him on account of family necessities and accommodation. Against the said loan, the respondent issued a cheque as a guarantee against repayment. He was to repay the said loan amount within a period of 6 months and an agreement to this effect was also signed between the parties. Since the respondent failed to repay the loan despite repeated requests, the appellant presented the concerned cheque for encashment but the same was dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds”.

Being aggrieved, a demand notice was sent by the appellant and the respondent claimed that the accusations made by the appellant were false and bereft of pertinent details of the loan transaction. Hence, the appellant moved a private complaint and the Trial Court observed that the respondent had failed to explain as to how the cheque landed in the hands of the appellant. However, it adjudicated in favour of the respondent, resultantly, dismissing the complaint of the appellant and acquitting the respondent. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court but it affirmed the acquittal and hence, he was before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “Upon perusal of the aforementioned principles and applying them to the facts and circumstances of the present matter, it is evident that there is no perversity and lack of evidence in the case of the respondent-accused. The concurrent findings have backing of detailed appraisal of evidences and facts, therefore, do not warrant interference in light of above enlisted principles.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the High Court.

Cause Title- Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 586)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Advocates Suraj Kaushik, Agam Sharma, Nanda Kumar, Akhila Wali, Shiva Swaroop, and Akash Kukreja.

Respondent: AOR Supreeta Sharanagouda, Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, and Jyotish Pandey.

Click here to read/download the Judgment