Acquittal can only be reversed if evidence is overwhelming: SC
The bench underlined that appellate interference is unwarranted if the findings of the courts below are reasonably possible and supported by the evidence.
The Supreme Court has asserted that appellate courts should interfere with an order of acquittal only in rare instances where the previous court’s view is “perverse” or where the evidence on record can only lead to the inescapable conclusion of guilt.
“Law is well settled that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be made only if the view taken by the court/s below is perverse or if no two views are possible and the only logical conclusion from the evidence is to record the guilt of the accused,” a bench of justices Sandeep Mehta and PB Varale held in a judgment released on Friday.
Dismissing a petition that had challenged the acquittal of five persons accused in a dowry death case, the bench underlined that appellate interference is unwarranted if the findings of the courts below are reasonably possible and supported by the evidence. The court’s observations came while rejecting the appeal filed by a man challenging the acquittal of his sister’s husband and in-laws, who were accused of murdering her over dowry demands.
By its judgment in October 2024, the Allahabad high court had upheld the trial court’s 2014 decision acquitting the petitioner’s brother-in-law, Ajit Singh, and four members of his family in connection with the death of the petitioner’s sister, Suchita Singh, who died by suicide at her matrimonial home in Ghaziabad in October 2010 -- less than two years after her wedding.
The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Sonia Mathur, alleged that his sister was subjected to harassment for dowry, and that her death was a result of sustained abuse. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in reopening the case, observing that both the trial court and the high court had given detailed reasons for acquitting the accused and that the findings did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Citing the facts on record, the top court noted that Ajit Singh, the husband of the deceased, had promptly informed the woman’s maternal family after the incident. The inquest proceedings and cremation were conducted in the presence of the deceased’s father, who was a serving deputy superintendent of police. Yet, no suspicion or objection was raised at the time of the inquest, the court pointed out.
The FIR in the case was lodged four days after the death, which, according to the trial court, cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations. The Supreme Court quoted from the lower court’s findings that the delay indicated “the story set out in the report was nothing but an afterthought.”
“We have carefully gone through the record and are of the opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in acquitting the respondents do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity,” the top court held, refusing to grant any indulgence in the form of a retrial or reversal of acquittal.
