Appellate Court Cannot Reverse Acquittal If Trial Court View Is Plausible: SC

Reaffirming that the presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal, the Supreme Court has set aside a High Court judgment that convicted a man for murder after overturning his acquittal by the trial court. Emphasizing the limits of appellate intervention, the apex court held that an acquittal should not be disturbed merely because an alternative view is possible on the evidence.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal challenging the conviction of an accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was imposed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had reversed the trial court's order acquitting the accused of murdering his wife and child.

High Court Erred in Reversing Acquittal

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to respect the double presumption of innocence operating in favor of the accused upon an acquittal. Restating the settled legal principles, the Court highlighted that the appellate court should not substitute its own view if the trial court's conclusion was a plausible one.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

Evaluating the child witness (PW-28) whose testimony formed the bedrock of the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court pointed out that the child admitted to being coached by police officials prior to deposing in court. Referencing Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. ( "(2003) 3 SCC 21": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 1516), the Court stressed that while a child is a competent witness, their evidence must be carefully evaluated due to susceptibility to tutoring. Furthermore, the Court noted that the circumstantial evidence failed to meet the 'panchsheel principles' reiterated in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala ( "(2024) 10 SCC 813": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 954), as there were missing links, medical contradictions, and an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the FIR.

Background

The prosecution alleged that on September 20, 1989, the appellant took his estranged wife and two sons on a trip from Kanpur to Khajuraho, where he strangulated his wife and one son to death and attempted to kill the minor child (PW-28). The child escaped and was found on September 26, 1989. Subsequently, the dead bodies were recovered, and FIRs were registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Following the investigation, charges were framed, and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court.

In December 1993, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, acquitted the appellant, citing contradictions and clear signs of tutoring in the minor's testimony, as well as an absence of corroborative evidence. On appeal by the State, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the acquittal, relying on the minor's account and the appellant's alleged abscondance, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court allowed the present appeal, following established principles in Chandrappa v State of Karnataka ( "(2007) 4 SCC 415": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 278), and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial court's verdict of acquittal.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2014
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 899
Case Title: Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 818