Appeal against acquittal – Interference – When not sustainable: Held: Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence – Trial Judge gave sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO and the other witnesses and by elaborately discussing the evidence found that the appellants were not guilty – Findings of the trial Judge were based on correct appreciation of the material placed on record – This elaborate exercise of the trial Judge was washed away by the Division Bench of the High Court in a totally cursory manner – Though the High Court referred to the law laid down by this Court with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it totally misapplied the same and a very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct appreciation of evidence by the trial Court was reversed only on the basis of conjectures and surmises – High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible – No perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted by the trial Judge – Furthermore, in any case, even if two views were possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view – Prosecution failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and in no case, the chain of circumstances, which was so interlinked to each other that led to no other conclusion, than the guilt of the accused persons – Judgment passed by the High Court being unsustainable is quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted. [Paras 6, 12-14, 16, 19-23]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Law as regards conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Discussed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.