The Chhattisgarh High Court has emphatically reiterated the stringent legal standard for interfering in an appeal against acquittal, ruling that appellate courts can only intervene if the trial court’s findings are “impossible or perverse.” A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru made this observation while upholding the acquittal of five men in a 28-year-old murder case, concluding that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence was weak and key testimonies were “not credible.”
The Court dismissed a state appeal against a 2003 trial court judgment that had cleared Deepak Phabyani, Upendra Surojiya, Vijay Kumar Soni, Manoj Sahu, and Liyakat @ Likku of the murder of Parameshwar Rao.
The High Bar for Reversing an Acquittal
At the outset of its analysis, the High Court underscored the limited jurisdiction of an appellate court when hearing an appeal against acquittal. The judgment explicitly stated the governing principle:
“The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal.”
The Bench further cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that interference is not warranted merely because the appellate court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence. Intervention is only justified if the trial court’s approach is “vitiated by some manifest illegality” or its conclusion is one that “could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously.”
Applying the Standard to the 1997 Murder Case
Applying this stringent legal filter, the High Court found no grounds to overturn the trial court’s decision in the long-pending murder case.
The prosecution’s case dates back to October 1997. The deceased, Parameshwar Rao, a Munim (accountant), was allegedly murdered after collecting Rs. 1,07,696 in cash and a bank draft for his employer. His body was discovered beaten, strangled, and burnt. Prosecutors alleged that the accused had lured Rao from his lodge, murdered him, and divided the stolen money. The trial court, however, acquitted all accused in 2003 for lack of sufficient evidence.
Appearing for the State, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Shashank Thakur contended that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the chain of circumstantial evidence. Counsel for the respondents argued that the acquittal was legally sound.
Court’s Analysis: A Chain of ‘Not Credible’ Evidence
The High Court meticulously examined the 14 circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and concluded that the trial court’s decision to acquit was a plausible and reasonable view, far from being perverse.
- The ‘Not Credible’ Phone Call: The entire motive was based on a phone call the deceased allegedly made to his employer, Trinath (PW-19), about the money he was carrying. The Court found this testimony unreliable, noting that Trinath’s first police report (Ex.P-45) made no mention of the specific amount. The Court held: “Trinath’s unlikely statement that the deceased had informed him about the night and collecting such draft and going to Kanker is not credible.”
- Failure to Prove Financial Links: The prosecution failed to establish that the accused had benefited financially from the crime. Witnesses from whom money was seized testified it was their own. The Court found there was “not even the slightest substantive evidence” to support the prosecution’s claims.
In a stark conclusion, the Court found that only one of the 14 circumstances was proven—that the body of the deceased was found. The rest of the chain was broken.
The Final Decision
Finding that the trial court’s view was not perverse or impossible, the High Court refused to interfere, pointing to the weakness of the evidence and the extreme delay in the proceedings. The Bench delivered a conclusive finding:
“Given the fact that more than 28 years have elapsed since the date of the incident… as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court which do not appear to suffer from perversity or manifest illegality, this Court finds no merit in interfering with the acquittal.”
The state’s appeal was accordingly dismissed.
