The Pinnacle court said that ‘Can't Interfere With Findings Of Acquittal Unless…’

It is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal unless it's found that view taken by the court is perverse, the Supreme Court has said while upholding the acquittal of a person who was accused of killing his wife and setting her flaming.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the state of Rajasthan against the September 2009 judgement of the tribunal which had acquitted the accused while reversing the tribunal order convicting him within the case.

"The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely limited. Unless it's found that the view taken by the court is impossible or perverse, it's not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal," a bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha said in its recent judgement.

The top court observed that equally if two views are possible, it's not permissible to line aside an order of acquittal, merely because the tribunal finds the way of conviction to be more probable.

"The interference would be warranted on condition that the view taken isn't possible in the slightest degree," it said.

According to the prosecution, the Jodhpur-based accused had killed his wife and set her aflare so as to destroy evidence.

He was charged with the alleged offences of murder and causing disappearance of evidence under the Indian legal code.

The court had in January 1986 convicted him for the offences of murder and causing disappearance of evidence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment.

The accused had filed an appeal within the tribunal challenging the trial court's verdict.

The supreme court acquitted him within the case after which the state had moved the highest court.

During the arguments before the highest court, the counsel appearing for the state had argued that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before one in all the witnesses of the case would inspire confidence and also the judgement gone by the tribunal must be put aside.

The bench noted that the state supreme court, while hoping on two judgements delivered earlier by the Supreme Court, had held that extra-­judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and conviction solely on its basis couldn't be sustained unless there was some corroboration.

"The view taken by the court can not be said to be either impossible or perverse meriting our interference," the Supreme Court said.