In a recent ruling on April 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of India reiterated crucial principles guiding appellate courts when reversing a decision of acquittal by a trial court. This landmark decision sheds light on the meticulous scrutiny required in such cases, emphasizing the need for adherence to established legal principles. The case, The State of Karnataka v. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others, presents a compelling narrative of justice, complexities in criminal trials, and the profound impact of legal procedures on outcomes.
Background:
The case of The State of Karnataka v. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others revolves around a tragic incident where the complainant’s son was allegedly murdered by Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others. The prosecution’s narrative suggests that after completing work on a check dam, the accused appeared, citing revenge for a previous murder. Subsequently, they purportedly murdered the complainant’s son. Despite the filing of an FIR and a trial, the trial court acquitted all six accused due to lack of conclusive evidence, leading to an appeal by the State in the Karnataka High Court.
History:
Following the appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal of three accused persons, including Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, the accused appealed this decision before the Supreme Court, leading to the recent ruling on April 19, 2024.
Key Aspects:
- Principles for Reversing Acquittal: The Supreme Court reiterated three guiding principles:
- (a) Judgment of acquittal suffering from patent perversity.
- (b) Based on a misreading or omission to consider material evidence.
- (c) No two reasonable views possible; only view consistent with guilt is plausible.
- High Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s approach, noting it failed to adhere to the established principles. Instead, the High Court decided the case as a first court, not considering the specific factors necessitated in an appeal against acquittal.
- Loopholes Highlighted:
- Lack of injuries to anyone but the deceased despite the group being together.
- Doubt on the genuineness of the FIR due to non-production of police station’s Daily Diary.
- Contradictions in testimonies, such as prosecution witness 6 not mentioning the complainant’s presence at the incident.
- Motive as a Double-Edged Sword: The Court observed a considerable time gap between the murder of Sangound and the alleged revenge, casting doubt on the motive attributed to the accused.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was contrary to established legal principles. It emphasized the importance of meticulous scrutiny and adherence to the principles guiding appeals against acquittal. Noting various loopholes and contradictions in the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and the other accused were acquitted of all charges.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in The State of Karnataka v. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards required when reversing a decision of acquittal. It underscores the importance of considering all aspects, including evidence, motive, and legal principles. The case study highlights the complexities involved in criminal trials and the significance of a fair and thorough judicial process. As this judgment sets a precedent, it will likely influence future cases, ensuring justice is served while upholding the integrity of legal procedures.
Source- Supreme Court of India
Also Read- CJI HIGHLIGHTS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR NEW CRIMINAL LAWS
