Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 6, Holds Prosecution Must Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Last Updated on November 11, 2024 by Amit Patra
In a judgment upholding the principles of fair trial and presumption of innocence, the Allahabad High Court has yet again held that the case of the prosecution should be proved “beyond reasonable doubt” and not merely “may be proved.”
The case in question was an acquittal of six persons accused for rioting and beating the police personnel in Babina district of Jhansi in 2008. The state government had challenged the acquittal given by the trial court and argued that the lower court has not appropriately appreciated the evidence.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I had rejected the appeal of the government stating that the judgment of acquittal by the trial court, which is reasoned, does not call for any interference.
While reversing the acquittal judgment, the High Court has underlined that the scope of interference by an appellate court is limited to specific grounds such as that the judgment suffers from “patent perversity” or based on “misreading/omission of material evidence” or where no view other than the guilt of the accused is possible.
In the instant case, the High Court held that “cogent and convincing reasons” had been assigned by the trial court for acquittal of the accused and that the order of acquittal was a “plausible and justifiable view” based upon the evidence on record.
Crucially, the High Court pointed to a very vital flaw in the prosecution case-the non-examination of the first informant, SI Arun Kant Singh, whose cross-examination had revealed stark contradictions and discrepancies, rendering the entire prosecution story “wholly unreliable.”
This order is underlined by the fact that this Allahabad High Court is very adamant to stick to the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, viz., the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. And the fact that the court did not overturn the acquittal despite the state’s arguments bespeaks eloquently of the fact that judicial scrutiny in this regard must be uncompromisingly intense, even in situations of prosecutorial eagerness.
The High Court judgment upholds the trial court’s view in sending a stern message that courts have to be satisfied with the quality and the reliability of evidence rather than mere probability of guilt. This decision, in fact, underlines the fundamental tenet of the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial, even in the face of public outcry or political pressure.
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court therefore becomes a beacon of judicial independence and a reiteration that the courts are determined to reinforce the rights of the accused in order that the scales of justice are not tilted, and the ultimate aim of the criminal justice system is to ensure that the truth, and only the truth, is pursued.
