Today, 12th April, Supreme Court ruled that acquittals can’t be reversed based solely on alternative interpretations. Clear error required for overturning acquittals, says Supreme Court decision. Decision emphasizes the importance of legal standards in reviewing acquittals. Court clarifies criteria for appellate review of acquittals in recent ruling.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that appellate courts cannot reverse acquittal orders solely because an alternative perspective exists. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan’s bench emphasized that unless an appellate court deems an acquittal judgment as perverse, it cannot intervene.
The bench stated,
“The appellate court is prohibited from reversing an acquittal order merely because an alternative interpretation exists. Specifically, the acquittal verdict must be deemed perverse. Absent such a determination by the appellate court, no intervention with the acquittal order is warranted,”
These observations made by the Supreme Court during its consideration of an appeal in a murder case, in which the high court reversed the trial court’s acquittal order.
Read Also: SC to Lay Down Guidelines
Justice Oka, writing on behalf of the bench, emphasized the established principle that in appeals against acquittals, the appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence.
The bench highlighted,
“Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the initial query for the appellate court is whether the trial court’s perspective was a reasonable one based on the evidence presented. The high court’s judgment did not delve into this crucial aspect.”
Further emphasizing, the bench stated that the appellate court may intervene in an acquittal only if, upon re-evaluation, it conclusively establishes the accused’s guilt beyond doubt.
The bench criticized,
“The high court neglected the established principle that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of the accused’s innocence. Our scrutiny of the judgment reveals the high court’s oversight of this pivotal issue.”
Justice Oka further critiqued the high court’s decision, noting an additional error in its finding that the accused not presented evidence to support their case or to disprove the prosecution’s version.
“This understanding of burden of proof is fundamentally flawed,”
The bench clarified,
“Unless a penal statute imposes a negative burden or a reverse onus clause, the accused bears no burden. In cases with statutory presumptions, once the prosecution meets its initial burden, the onus may shift to the accused.”
Read Also:“SC Dismisses West Bengal Challenge”
Expounding on this, the bench clarified that in the absence of such statutory provisions, as in this instance, the prosecution held the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It remarked.
“Thus, the high court’s stance on burden of proof is legally flawed and goes against established jurisprudence,”
The bench also criticized the high court for reversing the acquittal order despite the trial court’s findings being plausible upon re-evaluating the evidence.
The bench declared,
“Consequently, the appeal is merited. We overturn the high court’s December 14, 2018 judgment and acquit the appellants. The trial court’s July 5, 1997 verdict is reinstated,”
The case involves a father-son duo accused of murdering Punjabhai in Gujarat, with the incident occurring on September 17, 1996. The prosecution alleges that the duo attacked Punjabhai with pipes and sticks, resulting in fatal injuries.