In a resounding verdict echoing the sanctity of trial court decisions, the Supreme Court delivered a stern message, emphasizing the impermissibility of High Court interference unless the trial court’s stance is deemed perverse or impossible. The ruling, unveiled on Tuesday by the esteemed bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, unveiled a crucial legal principle ensuring judicial integrity and procedural fairness.
Casting light on the delicate balance of justice, the judgment underscored that even in the presence of divergent perspectives, High Courts lack jurisdiction to overturn acquittals rendered by trial courts unless such verdicts are tainted by perversity. “An interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view,” remarked the bench, affirming the sacrosanctity of trial court discretion.
In a significant reversal of the High Court’s findings, Justice BR Gavai, in authoring the judgment, rebuffed any notion of arbitrary interference, reiterating the necessity for concrete evidence before overturning trial court acquittals. The judgment cogently articulated, “We are compelled to say that the findings of the High Court are totally based on conjectures and surmises,” emphasizing the need for a meticulous examination of evidence over speculative conjectures.
The case under scrutiny unfolded as a criminal appeal, initiated by the accused against the High Court’s decision to reverse a trial court’s acquittal. Central to the trial court’s exoneration was the glaring absence of conclusive evidence, with the prosecution failing to substantiate guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court meticulously scrutinized the evidentiary landscape, discerning a lack of incriminating evidence to warrant conviction.
Drawing upon legal precedents, including the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the court elucidated the indispensable requirement of a cogent evidentiary chain to sustain convictions. “Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt,” iterated the court, underscoring the bedrock principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
In a decisive verdict, the Supreme Court, having discerned no semblance of perversity or impossibility in the trial court’s approach, reinstated the acquittal, thereby affirming the foundational principles of justice and procedural fairness.
The legal luminaries engaged in the case, including Counsel for Appellant(s) Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocates Mr. Ramkaran, Ms. Shraddha Saran, Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, and Counsel for Respondent(s) Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Mr. Vikas Bansal, Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Mr. Astik Gupta, Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Mr. Argha Roy, Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, and Ms. Ruby, lent their legal acumen to a case emblematic of judicial scrutiny and procedural integrity.
