New Delhi: The Supreme Court has observed that high courts must refrain from interfering with the orders of trial courts if there is no perversity of fact and law in the verdict.
It added that a person should not be convicted merely on suspicion no matter how strong such suspicion is.
A division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observations while granting relief to two convicts who had been sentenced to life by the Madhya Pradesh high court after turning down a trial court order that acquitted them.
“The law with regard to interference by the appellate court is very well crystallised. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted,” the Bench said, finding no fault in the trial court order, according to the Times of India.
It continued to add that the high court verdict was merely based on “conjectures and surmises” and goes against the basic legal principle that suspicion cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted no matter how strong the suspicion is, the court contended.
“It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,” the court added.
According to the top court, it is the primary principle that the accused “must be” and not “may be” proved guilty before a court decides to convict an accused. It underlined that such marked distinction is not merely grammatical but a legal distinction.
“It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court ruled.
