An appeal against acquittal in a criminal trial is filed before the High Court under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973. In this article, we examine the provisions and precedents which establish the law for appeal against acquittal by Public Prosecutors upon the direction of the Government.
Statutory Provisions
Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (in short called “CrPC”) provides for presenting an appeal by the Public Prosecutor on the direction of the State Government before the High Court against an order of acquittal, be it original or appellate, passed by any court other than the High Court.
Section 378(2) of the CrPC vests power to issue directions to the Public Prosecutor in the Central Government in cases where the investigation is conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, or any other investigating agency, like NIA, or ED.
Section 378(3) of the CrPC provides the discretion to the High Court to grant leave for entertaining such an appeal.
Section 378(4) of the CrPC provides that the complainant may present an appeal to the High Court when the case was instituted on a complaint. A case is instituted on a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal procedure Code 1973. But, before the appeal may be presented, a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal has to be filed before the High Court. If such special leave is granted, only then the appeal shall be heard on merits.
Section 378(5) of the CrPC provides a time limit for approaching the High Court against an order of acquittal under Section 378(4). In a case where the complainant is a public servant, the time limit is 6 months. In all other cases, the time limit is 60 days from the date of order of acquittal.
Section 378(6) of the CrPC bars any appeal by the Public Prosecutor under subsection (1) or (2) if the appeal by the complainant under subsection (4) of Section 378 CrPC has been refused.
High Court’s Powers in deciding appeals against Acquittals
The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down in various cases that the High Court shall tread lightly while interfering in cases where trial courts have given acquittals.
Though the High Courts have the power to scan through the evidence and re-appreciate the evidence in its entirety. However, the Court shall do so only when it finds an absolute assurance of guilt on the basis of evidence on record, and not merely because the High Court can take one more possible view or a different view.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramesh and another, the Supreme Court held that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, then the Court shall not disturb the findings of the acquittal.
In the case of Minal Das and others vs. State of Tripura, the Supreme Court held that after reappreciating, reconsidering, and reviewing the entire evidence, the High Court shall give cogent and adequate reasons for setting aside the Acquittal.
In Rohtash vs. State of Haryana, it was held that the High Court shall interfere with the acquittal only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment is found to be perverse.
In the case of Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, it was held that though the High Court has full power to reconsider, reappreciate, and review the entire evidence, it must bear in mind that there is double presumption in favor of the accused. Firstly, the one available to him under the fundamental principles of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and secondly, when the presumption has been further reinforced by securing an acquittal.
Conclusion
It is safe to conclude that the jurisprudence of intervention by the High Court has evolved since the findings in Sheo Swarup vs. King-Emperor, where the principles of intervention were first laid down.
It is further pertinent to say that the High Court, being the first appellate court, shall reappreciate the evidence on record in its entirety. However, there are two factors that act as filters for the cases in which the acquittal must not be overturned. These are:
- Double Presumption of Innocence must be borne in mind by the High Court.
- If the evidence produces two Reasonable Views, then the High Court shall not intervene.