STATE OF ASSAM Vs. MONOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The incident happened about 8 years ago. In the incident few superficial injuries were sustained by the prosecution witnesses and a shanty was gutted by fire. The people of the locality have forgotten the incident, but the 16 respondents are still living in the shadow of suspense, anxieties and mental agonies thinking all the time whether the High Court would upset the order of acquittal and despatch them to jail. The anxious heartthrobs of the respondents are audible. With the march of time they have grown older. They were young but now they are elderly persons.

(2.) Is it judicial justice to set aside an order of acquittal and turn it into a conviction and lodge the accused to jail after 8 years of the occurrence? Indeed there are cases and cases. But generally delayed justice has become a chronic problem for the court. If speedy trial is the Constitutional talisma of an accused enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, who should get the benefit of the denial of the Constitutional right? Is it judicial justice to convict and sentence an accused after 8 years of the alleged commission of an offence? We have said enough in so many cases and in this case we would like to add that there must be some statutory limitation to allow such appeals to remain in the dockets of the High Court. This is one side of the picture. The other side is that the judiciary is accountable to the people. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the soothing sentiments that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community demand especial emphasis and consideration in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. Indeed, the judicial instrument has a public accountability. We are of the view that if the order of acquittal has endangered the community at large we will not hesitate to set aside the order of acquittal.

(3.) The Quintessence of the rule governing the Power of the High Court in an Appeal from an order of Acquittal. Ever since its inception, the Supreme Court has ruled that an acquitted accused should not be put in period of conviction on appeal save where substantial and compelling grounds exist for such a recourse. Various limitations have been imposed on the High Court but they are Judge made guidelines of circumspection. The High Court has full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was based and to reach an appropriate conclusion upon such evidence either to reverse the order or not. In law there is no fetter on the plenary power of the High Court but the guidelines of circumspection set by the Supreme Court may be summed up as follows:(1) Even when the High Court does not agree with the view of the trial court yet reaches the conclusion that the view expressed by the trial Court is reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal should not be disturbed;(2) The appellate Court should be slow in disturbing the findings of fact reached by the trial Judge who had the advantage of observing the demeanor, action and conduct of the witnesses.Ordinarily, an order of acquittal should not be set aside unless there is manifest illegality resulting in the failure of justice or to prevent grave miscarriage of justice. These we cull from the decisions of the Supreme Court in S A.A. Biyabani v. State of Madras1, Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra2, Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan3, Rama Bhopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh4, The State of U.P. v. Samman Das5, Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra6, State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Anjaneulau7, Babu and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh8, Ramji Surjya v. State of Maharashtra9, Chandra Kanta Debnath v. State of Tripura10. The point has been succinctly dealt with by Balakrishna Eradi, J. in Bansi Lal v. Laxman Singh decided on 15-7-1986, where speaking for the Court his Lordship observed inter alia: Even in an appeal against an order of acquittal no interference will be made with the judgment of the trial court except in rare and exceptional case where there has been some manifest illegality in the approach to the case or the appreciation of the evidence or where the conclusion of fact recorded by the trial Judge is wholly unreasonable so as to be characterised as perverse and there has been a resultant miscarriage of justice