Mohd. Akhtar @ Kari & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Background
In 1984, a mob attack in a Bihar village left one man, Md. Nadir Sah @ Jumma, shot dead, allegedly by a group of accused persons armed with firearms. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the eyewitness identification unreliable, noting an unexplained delay in the FIR, and drawing an adverse inference from irregularities in police timing and missing witnesses. The Patna High Court later reversed this acquittal on appeal, convicting several of the accused (the appellants) under Section 302 (murder) read with Sections 34 and 148 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to overturn the trial court's acquittal merely because a different view of the evidence was possible. Relying on a long line of precedent (including Sheo Swarup, Surajpal Singh, Muralidhar, and Ghurey Lal), the Court reiterated that an appellate court can only disturb an acquittal for "very substantial and compelling reasons," such as the trial court's findings being palpably wrong or based on an erroneous view of law, not simply because the evidence could also support conviction. Finding that the trial court's view (on delay in lodging the FIR, unreliable eyewitness identification, and investigative lapses) was a reasonable and possible one, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal and set aside the High Court's conviction. Three of the original appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal, so their appeals abated.
Lesson Learnt
When a trial court acquits an accused person, that acquittal carries a strengthened presumption of innocence; an appellate court cannot overturn it just because another view of the same evidence is also possible: it must show the trial court's reasoning was clearly wrong or legally unsound.