The High Court cannot interfere in the Criminal Acquittal Appeal unless the findings of the Trial Judge is Perverse or Impossible: Supreme Court
Case title: Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2018
Decision on: April 2nd, 2024
Quoram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the case
In this case the deceased Mahesh Sahu was in a relationship with Anita, the sister of the appellant. The couple after staying together in Agra for eight months returned to Damoh . Subsequently, the marriage of Anita was solemnized with another person. But, even then, the couple continued to stay in touch. The appellants due to enmity alleged to have caused the death of Mahesh in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye-witness who saw the appellants dragging a dead body from the house and washing the blood stains at the door of their house. The Trial Judge acquitted the accused persons since the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court by the impugned judgment reversed the decision of the trial Judge and convicted the appellant 1 & 2 under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC and Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC respectively with rigorous imprisonment for life.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court had grossly erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal and neglected to observe elaborate reasonings of the Trial Court on the failure of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and unless the prosecution is able to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt it is not permissible to interfere with the findings of the trial Judge and to record the finding of conviction.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
The Counsel for the State submitted that the trial Judge has totally misread the evidence. He submitted that the evidence of Beni Prasad and Sumitra Bai coupled with the medical evidence, would show that that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue – Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to adetermine the guilt of the appellants for committing the crime?
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court stated that the case was clearly based on the circumstantial evidence and accordingly perused the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which laid down five golden principles for the same. It inferred from the said judgement that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Also, emphasized that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. Further, it noted that no matter how strong the suspicion is, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated the legal principle that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court analyzed the elaborate facts and circumstantial evidence discussed by the Trial Judge. It noted that the prosecution had failed to prove any of the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and to provide the interlinked chain of circumstances to conclude the guilt of the accused persons. It asserted the findings of the Trial Judge in providing sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO and the other witnesses and noted that the High Court had erred in observing the same.
The Court noted that the High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible, which was absent in the present case. It held that the decision of High Court was totally based on conjectures and surmises and unsustainable in law. The Apex Court thereby set aside the impugned order of the High Court and acquitted the accused persons.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K