The Supreme Court On Tuesday(2nd April) quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in a murder case, expressing strong disapproval of the High Court’s cursory manner in overturning the trial court’s well-reasoned acquittal.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(2nd April), The Supreme Court quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in a murder case, expressing strong disapproval of the High Court’s cursory manner in overturning the trial court’s well-reasoned decision to acquit the accused. A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that it is firmly established in law that trial court orders should not be interfered with solely based on the possibility of an alternative view.
The Supreme Court articulated its disapproval by stating-
“The extensive analysis conducted by the learned trial Judge has been summarily dismissed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. We believe that the High Court’s assertion that the trial Judge disregarded the evidence of the IO [Investigating Officer] based solely on conjectures and suppositions is erroneous. Instead, it is the High Court’s judgment that relies on conjectures and suppositions.”
the Supreme Court pointed out the rigorous examination of evidence that formed the basis of the acquittal.
ALSO READ: CPI(ML) Liberation MLA in Bihar Gets Life Sentence for Murder.
“The trial Judge meticulously analyzed the evidence, leaving no stone unturned. We firmly conclude that the trial Judge’s conclusions are grounded in a proper understanding of the evidence presented. There is no evidence of any distortion or impossibility in the trial Judge’s approach.”
– the court observed, reinstating the trial court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized the foundational legal principle that appellate courts should exercise caution and adhere to the law’s strictures when revising trial court verdicts, especially in acquittal cases.
The bench reiterated the impermissibility of reversing well-founded judgments merely on the basis of alternate interpretations, stating-
“Repeatedly, it is imperative to assert that the High Court’s determinations are entirely speculative and based on conjecture. Despite citing precedents established by this Court regarding the boundaries of intervention in appeals against acquittals, the High Court has fundamentally misapplied these principles. Consequently, a judiciously reasoned judgment, rooted in the trial Court’s precise assessment of evidence, has been overturned solely on speculative grounds.”
This important decision not only cleared the two individuals but also reminded the judiciary to ensure fair and thorough evaluation of evidence. The Supreme Court’s strong stance emphasizes the importance of upholding the law at every stage of the legal process, safeguarding people’s rights against incorrect interpretations.
As a result, the appeal was allowed, and both appellants were acquitted of all charges. The accused individuals were represented by a team of competent advocates, including Varun Thakur, Ramkaran, Shraddha Saran, Brajesh Pandey, and Varinder Kumar Sharma.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Looks into Mystery of ‘Planted’ Earrings in Murder Case
On the other hand, the State of Madhya Pradesh was represented by a group of advocates, namely Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Vikas Bansal, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Ojaswini Gupta, and Ruby.
CASE TITLE:
Ballu vs State of Madhya Pradesh
