SC Limits Appellate Interference with Acquittal under Article 136

• The Supreme Court has limited appellate interference with acquittals under Article 136.
• An order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
• Appellate courts cannot interfere with an acquittal merely because another view is possible.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases where acquittals are challenged on minor inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence.

The Supreme Court has clarified that appellate courts in India have limited scope to interfere with acquittals under Article 136, even when minor inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence are present. This ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of upholding the presumption of innocence in Indian law. In a recent case, the court dismissed an appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the acquittal of Moti Ram in a murder case, holding that the high court's view was a possible one supported by the record. The court emphasized that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that interference is not warranted merely because another view of the case is possible.

The high court had granted Moti Ram the benefit of doubt due to material contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding the overt act attributed to him. The court also noted unexplained discrepancies concerning the physical condition of the recovered weapon, which further supported its decision. Additionally, the high court observed that although around 10-15 people had gathered at the place of the incident, none of them came forward to stop the scuffle between Moti Ram and Man Singh. These findings were sufficient for the high court to acquit Moti Ram of the charges.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases where acquittals are challenged on minor inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence. Lawyers should note that the Supreme Court has limited the scope for appellate interference with acquittals under Article 136, making it more challenging to challenge acquittals based on minor discrepancies. The court's emphasis on upholding the presumption of innocence highlights the importance of carefully evaluating evidence in such cases.

Lawyers should note that the Supreme Court has limited the scope for appellate interference with acquittals under Article 136, making it more challenging to challenge acquittals on minor inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence.

Source: Original reporting via Supreme Court Judgments