Subsequent Change Of Law By Itself Not A Ground To Reverse Acquittal : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a delay condonation application with an appeal against an acquittal cannot be allowed because the prosecution's case is supported by a subsequent change of law. According to the court, a change of law would not justify re-opening a case that has already been decided."Change of law by itself cannot be a ground for finding fault with the acquittal...
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a delay condonation application with an appeal against an acquittal cannot be allowed because the prosecution's case is supported by a subsequent change of law. According to the court, a change of law would not justify re-opening a case that has already been decided.
"Change of law by itself cannot be a ground for finding fault with the acquittal judgment," the Court observed.
The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the criminal appeal filed against the Kerala High Court's decision allowing the State's plea against the appellant's acquittal because a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court favored the prosecution's case.
Briefly put, the appellant was acquitted based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), which held that the informant and investigator in a criminal case should not be the same person to ensure a fair investigation.
Later on, in Mukesh Singh v. State (2020), the Supreme Court overruled Mohan Lal's judgment allowing the informant to act as the investigator.
Placing reliance on Mukesh Singh's judgment, the State appealed to the High Court with a delay condonation application seeking leave to condone 1184 days occurred in filing an appeal against the acquittal for overturning the appellant's acquittal.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to allow the delay condonation application in filing an appeal against the acquittal prompted the Appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court observed that subsequent change of law cannot be a ground to overturn the acquittal.
Reference was drawn to a recent case of Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors. (2024), which held that a change in law cannot reopen cases that have already been decided unless they are pending final adjudication.
Since Hyder's case was decided in 2018, it could not be revisited solely due to the subsequent Mukesh Singh ruling in 2020, the court observed.
“Having considered the basis for the acquittal and also the fact that change of law by itself cannot be a ground for finding fault with the acquittal judgment rendered in favour of the appellant as far back as on 10.12.2018, the impugned order dated 23.06.2023 of the High Court in our assessment, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, by setting aside the order dated 23.06.2023 in the Crl. M.A. No. 1 of 2022 in Crl. Appeal No. 762 of 2023, the appeal is allowed.”, the court held.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ritesh Kumar Chowdhary, AOR Mr. Niyas Valiyathodi, Adv. Mr. Akash Kumar Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Adv.
Case Title: HYDER VERSUS STATE OF KERALA
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1016
Related Report: Subsequent Change In Law Can't Be A Ground For Condonation Of Delay: Supreme Court