In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court has underscored the criticality of respecting the trial court’s decisions in cases of conflicting evidence leading to acquittal. The apex court emphasized that when evidence presents two plausible interpretations, with one supporting innocence and the other guilt, appellate courts must prioritize the former.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma articulated that once the trial court’s assessment leads to the defendant’s exoneration, appellate courts are barred from overturning such findings solely on the basis of an alternate perspective favoring conviction.
This judicial observation rests firmly on the cornerstone principle of criminal jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s authored judgment delineated six cardinal principles for appellate courts to adhere to when deliberating appeals from acquittals.
Firstly, the comprehensive assessment of evidence, encompassing both oral and documentary forms, stands as the bedrock of criminal trials. Secondly, any partial or selective evaluation of evidence risks miscarriage of justice and warrants challenge.
Thirdly, in cases where two plausible interpretations emerge, the one favoring the accused should prevail. Fourthly, unless the trial court’s view is legally untenable, the mere possibility of an opposing view does not merit acquittal reversal.
Fifthly, if appellate courts contemplate overturning an acquittal, they must meticulously address all grounds cited by the trial court and thoroughly scrutinize all pertinent facts. Finally, any reversal from acquittal to conviction demands a demonstration of illegality, perversity, or error in law or fact in the trial court’s decision.
Applying these principles, the court found that the High Court, in reassessing the evidence, erred in reversing the acquittal without pinpointing any illegality, perversity, or erroneous reasoning by the trial court.
Consequently, the impugned judgment was overturned, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges leveled against them.
