New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that an order of acquittal of an accused must not be interfered with unless there are compelling circumstances and the order is found to be patently illegal.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia said: ``There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.''

Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Pasayat said, ``The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.''

Miscarriage of justice

The Bench said: ``The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not.''

``The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference,'' the Bench said.

In the instant case, the trial court had convicted and awarded five years' imprisonment to Balaram and three others for causing the death of Munshi by giving him hefty blows.

On appeal, the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted them holding that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The State preferred an appeal.

Appeal dismissed

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: ``When the conclusions of the High Court in the background of the evidence on record are tested on the touchstone of the principles set out, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.''

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail