'Compelled to say Madhya Pradesh HC findings totally based on conjectures, surmises', SC acquits mother-son duo in 1992 murder case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set free a man and his mother from murder charges in a 32-year-old case, noting the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment holding them guilty by reversing the trial court's acquittal was “totally based on conjectures and surmises”.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta acquitted Ballu and his mother Halki Bahu in the case related to murder of Mahesh Sahu in 1992 on suspicion that the deceased maintained illicit relationship with his sister.

The bench, however, said, “The law with regard to interference by the appellate court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted.”

In its April 2 judgment, the court said the elaborate exercise of the trial judge, has been washed away by the division bench of the high court in a totally cursory manner.

“The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial judge were either perverse or impossible. No perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted by the learned trial judge,” the bench said.

The bench said in any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the high court, unless the view taken by the trial judge was a perverse or impossible view.

“We are compelled to say that the findings of the High Court are totally based on conjectures and surmises,” the bench said.

The bench also pointed out that though the high court has referred to the law laid down by it with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it has totally misapplied the same. 

“A very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct appreciation of evidence by the trial court has been reversed by the high court, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises," the bench said.

The court said that the trial judge had given sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the investigating officer and the other witnesses. 

“We are of the view that the high court has totally erred in observing that the trial Judge had brushed aside the evidence of the IO simply on the basis of conjectures and surmises,” the bench said.

The trial judge had noted that the incident was of June 7, 1992 at around 12 am and it had been reported to IO at 12:40 am, the arrest of the accused persons had been made only on June 15, 1992, which creates a doubt on the prosecution version. 

This is more so when the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is hardly 1 to 1.5 kms, the trial court said.