Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/supreme-court-will-not-interfere-with-orders-of-acquittal-by-j-venkatesan-11938.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Supreme Court will not interfere with orders of acquittal by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Supreme Court will not interfere with orders of acquittal by J Venkatesan

The Supreme Court has held that it would not, under normal circumstances, interfere with judgments of acquittal in criminal cases, as these had the obvious trait of freedom having been granted to the citizen.

A Bench of Justices Swatanter Kumar and Ranjana Desai said: “Unless the judgement in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous, or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Kumar said: “The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are ‘right to fair trial' and ‘presumption of innocence'.

“A person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption, which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons.”

Citing earlier rulings, the Bench said: “When an accused is acquitted of a criminal charge, the right vests in him to be a free citizen and this Court is very cautious in taking away that right. The presumption of the innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the fact of the acquittal of the accused under our criminal jurisprudence. The courts have held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, then, the one favourable to the accused may be adopted by the court.”

The Bench, however, said that in such cases where there was an apparent perversity of facts and/or laws in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere.

In the instant case, the Rajasthan government had appealed against the order of acquittal rendered by the Rajasthan High Court to an accused, respondent Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, in a murder case. The court had held that Dutta was entitled to the benefit of exception under Section 84 IPC — which says nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to the law.

Therefore, the Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned high court judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity and did not call for any interference.

“Once a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek recourse to the general exceptions from criminal liability.
 
* ‘Once held not guilty, one enjoys presumption of innocence'
* Appellate court may interfere only if judgment has perversity of facts