If two views possible in cases seeking reversal of acquittal, view favoring accused should be adopted: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that in cases of reversal of acquittal, where two views are possible, the view which favors the accused has to be adopted [Roopwanti v. State of Haryana and Others]..A division bench of Justices Krishna Murari and BV Nagarathna said that in such cases, courts must keep in mind that the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused would stand strengthened and fortified and the prosecution will have an even greater responsibility to reverse the presumption. "In cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the courts must keep in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified. The prosecution then, while still working under the same burden of proof, is required to discharge a more onerous responsibility to annul and reverse the fortified presumption of innocence. This fortification of the presumption of innocence has been held in a catena of judgments by this court," the bench stated.The Court was hearing an appeal against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had acquitted the respondents-accused under Sections 148 (rioting),149 (unlawful assembly], 323 (hurt), 324 (hurt by dangerous weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), 302 (murder) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .By way of background, on December 22, 2009, the six accused had attacked the deceased who died from injuries the next day.A first investigation report (FIR) was registered against the respondents. During the trial, none of the eyewitnesses were able to support the case of the prosecution and the trial court found the case of the prosecution to be doubtful which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of all the respondents.Moreover, it was also noted by the trial court that the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased, gave a completely different narration of events as compared to the one of the prosecution witness. The High Court also dismissed the appeal on ground that judgment of acquittal passed by trial court was based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts and there was no error.The appellant then moved the apex court in appeal. .The top court noted that where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the courts must keep in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified.Therefore, the prosecution, while still working under the same burden of proof, is required to discharge a more onerous responsibility to annul and reverse such presumption of innocence, the Court said. In this regard, reliance was also placed by the Court on its decisions in Allarakha K Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) and Mrinal Das and Others v. The State of Tripura (2011), wherein it was observed that:"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.".In view of the above, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court did not commit any error and had carefully examined all evidence. .[Read Judgment]