Appellate courts, including high courts, should not interfere with verdicts acquitting the accused in criminal cases merely on the ground that a "different view" was possible, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, 4 December.
A bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and R Subhash Reddy, referring to previous apex court verdicts, held that the trial court's acquittal should not be disturbed by the appellate courts unless there existed "very substantial and compelling reasons".
“Interference with an order of acquittal is not permissible on the ground that a different view is possible. If the acquittal is justified on a probable view taken by the trial court, it should not be interfered with,” Justice Rao, writing the verdict for the bench, said.
The apex court's observation came in a verdict by which it set aside a Patna High Court judgment convicting accused in a murder case of 1984.
A man named Md Nadir Sah was shot dead in 1984 near Matihani at Begusarai district in Bihar and seven persons were listed in the charge sheet in the case.
The trial was conducted against five persons as one accused died and another absconded.
The trial court acquitted the five accused on various grounds, including the delay in lodging the FIR, untrustworthy witnesses, improbability of identification of the accused and non-examination of independent witnesses.
Patna High Court reversed the trial court verdict and convicted the five accused.
“The high court felt that apart from minor inconsistencies, the evidence of the eye witnesses was reliable and there was sufficient light to identify the accused”Supreme Court
"The accused shared a common intention of killing the deceased according to the high court. The delay in registering the FIR was found to be not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of interested witnesses was also held reliable by the high court," the apex court judgement said.
The top court set aside the high court verdict and acquitted two accused in the case.
Three other accused had died during the pendency of their appeal in the apex court and the proceedings with regard to them had got abated.
“Interference with the judgment of the trial court in this case by the high court is on a re-appreciation of evidence which is undoubtedly permissible.”Supreme Court
"Though the high court was aware of the well-settled principles of law in matters relating to appeals against acquittals, it failed to apply the same in their proper perspective," the apex court said.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)