If Acquittal Is Based On Irrelevant Grounds, Supreme Court Obligated To Interfere Under Article 136 : Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution it can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice. The Bench Comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan while reversing the acquittal of the respondent/accused to conviction stated that though under...
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution it can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.
The Bench Comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan while reversing the acquittal of the respondent/accused to conviction stated that though under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal except when the prosecution's case proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
“ If the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds, if the High Court allows itself to be misled by distractions, if the High Court dismisses the evidence accepted by the Trial Court without proper consideration, or if the High Court's flawed approach leads to the neglect of vital evidence, this Court is obligated to intervene to uphold the interests of justice and address any concerns within the judicial conscience.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant noted referring to State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha.
In the present case, while overturning the Trial Court's decision of conviction, the High Court acquitted the accused for committing an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code i.e., causing the death of a deceased by a Gun Shot, after casting reasonable doubt on the story of the prosecution. Against the acquittal of the accused, the State preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the accused/respondent that the interference of the Supreme Court under Article 136 to interfere with the order of the acquittal isn't warranted as the case does not fall within such an exceptional category where the Supreme Court while exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution, should interfere in a well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
Rejecting such contention of the accused, the Supreme Court opined that it can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 where an erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case and/or ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court referred to its Judgment of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, to state that “an intervention is warranted under Article 136 of the constitution when the High Court's approach or reasoning is deemed perverse. This occurs when the High Court, based on suspicion and surmises, rejects evidence or when the acquittal is primarily rooted in an exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused.”
Testing the High Court's decision on the aforementioned observation, the Supreme Court found it difficult to concur with the reasoning provided by the High Court in acquitting the accused.
One of the arguments in favor of the acquittal was that the prosecution has falsely implicated the accused, whereby it accuses that the prosecution case is based on the incidental witnesses comprising of deceased family members and close relatives.
However, rejecting such an argument, the Supreme Court observed that such witnesses cannot be considered incidental witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural witnesses.
“This Court, in Thoti Manohar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, observed that in the incident, which transpired partly within the confines of the house and extended slightly beyond the deceased's premises, the family members and close relatives naturally become the witnesses. These individuals cannot be considered incidental witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural witnesses in the given factual context. Typically, a close relative is unlikely to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. While it is acknowledged that emotions can run high and personal animosity may exist, merely being related does not provide a valid basis for criticism; instead, familial ties often serve as a reliable assurance of truth.”, the Supreme Court said.
Further, the accused also contended that the prosecution had presented a concocted story to implicate the accused as none of the neighbors came forward to witness the occurrence of the incident.
Finding it illogical and a misconceived notion, the Supreme Court observed that as the shot was fired at close range, the people in the neighborhood did not come to know about the incident, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on this count.
"We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned by the High Court while granting acquittal to Gurpreet Singh are totally perverse and as a result of misreading of the evidence on record. In this view of the matter, sustaining the acquittal of Gurpreet Singh, would amount to a travesty of justice and it, thus, warrants interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, which we invoke sparingly. Consequently, the order of acquittal passed by the High Court qua Gurpreet Singh cannot be sustained and is set aside.", the Supreme Court observed.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision of acquitting the accused and restored the Trial Court's decision of convicting the accused/respondent No. 1.
Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Dhama, A.A.G. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Malivka Raghavan, Adv. Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Salam, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent(s) Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv.
Case Title: State of Punjab versus Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 218