New Delhi:The Supreme Court, while acquitting a father-son duo in a nearly three-decade-old murder case, stated that the Gujarat High Court recorded a finding that accused failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine the defence witness, and failed to establish falsity of the prosecution's version, and “this concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong”.
The high court had overturned the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
A bench comprising justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after re-appreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Oka, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said, “The appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the appellate court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal”.
The bench, in a judgment delivered on April 10, said the high court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused.
Pointing at the second error in the High Court’s decision, Justice Oka said: “The high court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine the defence witness and failed to establish falsity of the prosecution's version. This concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong”.
Justice Oka said unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. He stressed that in a case where there is a statutory presumption after the prosecution discharges the initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused.
“In the absence of the statutory provisions as above, in this case, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the High Court's finding on the burden of proof is completely erroneous. It is contrary to the law of the land”, the bench added.
A father-son duo was prosecuted for the offence of murder of one Punjabhai in Gujarat. The incident occurred on September 17, 1996. It was alleged that Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and Bachubhai Valabhai Chavda assaulted Punjabhai with pipes and sticks. The deceased suffered a large number of injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries.
In July 1997, the trial court acquitted them but the state moved the high court, which reversed the acquittal and convicted the duo for murder. The father-son duo moved the apex court against the high court's verdict.
“There was no reason for the High Court to overturn the order of acquittal when the findings of the Trial Court were possible findings that could be arrived at after re-appreciating evidence…. The judgment and order dated 5th July 1997 of the trial court is restored. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed”, said the apex court, setting aside the high court judgment.
Read more
- SC Junks Review Plea Against Over Rs 1.54 Cr Compensation to Ex-Air Force Personnel
- 'Under Guise of Freedom of Speech, Can’t Distort Facts', SC Initiates Contempt Action
- SC Halts Proceedings in Money Laundering Case against ‘Lottery King’ Santiago Martin
