The Supreme Court said an accused’s acquittal can be set aside only for “substantial and compelling reasons,” stressing that innocence is strengthened after acquittal. Appellate courts must interfere only in exceptional cases with strong legal grounds.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday clearly stated that reversing an acquittal should not be done routinely and only strong and convincing reasons can justify setting aside the release of an accused person.
The top court emphasised that once an accused is acquitted, the law strongly protects their innocence, and appellate courts must be extremely careful before interfering with such decisions.
A bench comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria made these observations while dismissing an appeal and upholding an order passed by the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court had earlier overturned the conviction of three persons who were found guilty by a trial court in a murder case.
The Supreme Court reiterated that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence of an accused and any attempt to reverse such an order must meet a very high legal standard. Explaining this settled position of law, the bench observed:
“It is a well-settled principle enunciated by series of judgments of this Court that there must exist substantial and compelling reasons to upset the acquittal. Once the court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is reinforced. Thereafter, the interference by the appellate court would be minimal and has to be guided by strong and cogent reasons.”
The court further clarified that an appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely because it believes another view of the evidence is possible.
The judges cautioned that re-evaluating evidence does not automatically justify overturning an acquittal unless the conclusions drawn earlier are clearly unreasonable or legally flawed. In this context, the bench stated:
“Reversal of acquittal should not be a matter of course just because the other view is considered to be possible by the appellate court. Even when the appellate court re-appreciates the evidence while dealing with the judgment and order of acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused acquitted from the charges of offences would be a weighty rebuttable factor,”
The Supreme Court also stressed that criminal law requires a very high level of proof to convict a person. It underlined that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt and not on assumptions or weak evidence.
The bench observed that unless the prosecution proves its case conclusively, the benefit must go to the accused.
Referring specifically to the facts of the case before it, the apex court noted that the Allahabad High Court had carefully examined the evidence on record and reversed the trial court’s conviction after considering all relevant aspects.
The High Court, according to the Supreme Court, reached a reasonable and legally sound conclusion while acquitting the accused.
Finding no legal error or perversity in the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court refused to interfere and upheld the acquittal of the three accused persons, once again reaffirming the long-standing legal principle that acquittals should not be overturned lightly.
Read More Reports On Overturning Verdicts
