High Court cannot reverse acquittal merely because different view is possible: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot overturn a trial court's acquittal merely because it takes a different view of the evidence [Darshan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh].

Before reversing an acquittal, the High Court must first demonstrate that the trial court's findings were perverse, the top court said.

In an order passed on July 22, a Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale set aside a verdict of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had overturned the trial court's acquittal and convicted a murder accused.

The apex court found that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had merely re-appreciated the evidence and substituted its own view without establishing perversity in the trial court's findings.

"On a perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the High Court did not say specifically which are the reasons assigned by the trial court that are perverse. In other words, it re-appreciated the evidence and substituted it with that of the trial court," the Bench observed.

The Court reiterated that where the trial court has taken a possible or plausible view, the High Court cannot substitute it merely because another view is possible. It added that where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit must go to the accused.

Hence, it restored the trial court's acquittal.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by accused Darshan Kumar against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment reversing his acquittal and convicting him of murder and robbery.

The case arose out of the murder of a man on April 26, 1995.

According to the prosecution, the deceased had lent money to Kumar, who was unable to repay the loan. It alleged that Kumar and another accused went to the deceased's house, murdered him and robbed him. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of blood-stained clothes, a muffler allegedly used for strangulation and the last seen theory.

The trial court acquitted Kumar. It rejected the testimony of key prosecution witnesses and the last seen theory.

It also found the recoveries unreliable, noted the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court reversed the acquittal after re-appreciating the evidence. It held that the statements of key witnesses were admissible, accepted the prosecution's last seen theory and concluded that the trial court's reasoning was perverse. It consequently convicted Kumar.

Kumar then challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to identify any perversity in the trial court's findings. Instead, it had merely substituted its own view.

The Bench also agreed with the trial court's doubts regarding the delayed FIR, the alleged recoveries and the prosecution's circumstantial evidence.

Emphasising that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, the Court said,

"We do not find any perversity with the views expressed by the trial court, and an order of acquittal creates a double presumption and, therefore, the First Appellate Court will have to be doubly sure in reversing the order of the trial court which has not been done in the present case. In view of the same, we are inclined to set aside the same by restoring the judgment passed by the trial court."

Thus, the Court restored the trial court's acquittal and directed that Kumar be released from jail immediately unless required in any other case.

Advocates Rohan Kochhar, Avishkar Singhvi, Mrityunjai Singh, Gauri Goburdhun and Abhishek Yadav appeared for the accused.

Advocates Vivek Kumar, Abhishek Gautam, Anushka Sharma and Mrityunjai Singh appeared for the State.

[Read Order]