SC Can Interfere With the Order of the Acquittal If the Acquittal of an Accused Would Lead to a Significant...
“The Supreme Court can interfere with the order of acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.”
Explanation:
1. Finality of Acquittal Orders:
Generally, an order of acquittal passed by a competent court is final and binding.
The principle behind this is to uphold the rule of law, avoid harassment of the accused, and respect the findings of fact by the trial or appellate courts.
It also protects the accused from being repeatedly prosecuted for the same offense (principle of double jeopardy).
2. Limited Scope for Interference:
The Supreme Court or High Courts normally do not interfere with acquittals on facts because the trial court or appellate court is better positioned to assess the evidence.
Courts give benefit of doubt to the accused, especially when prosecution evidence is weak or unreliable.
3. Exceptional Circumstances for Interference:
However, the Supreme Court can interfere with an acquittal if:
The acquittal is based on perverse findings of fact or gross misreading of evidence.
There is a manifest miscarriage of justice.
The acquittal is contrary to law or against the weight of evidence.
The acquittal could lead to failure of justice or jeopardize the safety of society.
There is plausible material or evidence that was overlooked or not properly appreciated.
Interference in such cases is to ensure that justice is served and wrongful acquittals do not undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Key Case Laws:
1. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 5 SCC 28
The Supreme Court held that an order of acquittal passed by an appellate court can be interfered with by the High Court or Supreme Court in rare and exceptional cases.
Interference is justified if the acquittal is based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence, or the court failed to appreciate evidence properly.
The court emphasized that it is not merely to reverse acquittals but to correct miscarriage of justice.
2. Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424
The Court discussed the importance of the right to liberty and the principle that accused should be given benefit of doubt.
However, it recognized that in cases of serious crimes, if acquittal results from ignoring or misappreciation of evidence, the higher courts can intervene.
3. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622
The court stated that where there is conclusive proof against the accused, acquittal should not be allowed to stand.
It held that if the trial or appellate court's acquittal is unreasonable or perverse, higher courts can interfere.
4. Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 94
The Supreme Court held that interference with acquittal is justified where it is manifestly unjust or contrary to the evidence on record.
Summary:
Acquittals are generally final and binding to protect accused from harassment.
Supreme Court’s interference is rare and only in exceptional cases where acquittal leads to miscarriage of justice.
Interference is warranted if acquittal is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or results in failure of justice.
Courts exercise this power cautiously to balance individual liberty and societal interest in justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments