The Supreme Court has restored the acquittal of a man accused of murder and robbery in a 1995 case, holding that a High Court cannot reverse a trial court’s acquittal merely by taking a different view of the evidence unless it first demonstrates that the trial court’s findings are perverse.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal filed by appellant, who had been accused under Sections 302, 392 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, murdered the deceased over a loan dispute and committed robbery. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The Trial Court had acquitted the appellant after finding significant deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. It disbelieved the last seen theory, found the recovery of incriminating articles unreliable, noted inconsistencies regarding the timing of injuries sustained by the appellant, questioned corrections made by the medical examiner, and held that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal after re-appreciating the evidence and convicted the appellant.
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court observed that while an appellate court is empowered to re-appreciate evidence, it cannot replace a plausible view taken by the trial court with its own merely because another interpretation is possible. The Court emphasised that before reversing an acquittal, the appellate court must specifically demonstrate why the trial court’s reasoning is perverse, which the High Court had failed to do in the present case.
The Bench also noted that the prosecution’s case suffered from material infirmities. It observed that the principal witness had not initially disclosed the presence of the accused and had improved his version later. The Court further found the delay in registration of the FIR unexplained, despite the deceased’s wife returning home on the night of the incident. It also held that the alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes was doubtful, particularly since DNA analysis of the blood stains was inconclusive.
Also Read AI Introduces New Expressions to Law
Reiterating that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption in favour of the accused, the Court held that the High Court ought to have exercised greater restraint before overturning the trial court’s judgment. Finding no perversity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal, allowed the appeal, and directed the appellant’s immediate release unless required in any other case.
