New Delhi, Oct 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court has held that the paramount duty of court is to prevent the miscarriage of justice and an appellate court has the power of reviewing the entire evidence to do justice.
A bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma upheld the Rajasthan High Court judgement directing acquittal of a husband, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his wife as he suspected her fidelity.
According to prosecution, on March 22 1999, both Narayan and his wife Bhanwari Devi were found lying in a pool of blood.
The throat of the woman was cut and she was dead whereas the husband, whose throat was also cut, survived. At the time of the incident the lady was five or six month pregnant while Narayan had come from abroad only three months ago which made him suspect that she was carrying the child of somebody else in her womb. This was the topic of frequent fights between the couple.
The Rajasthan High Court, however, acquitted the husband. The apex court while upholding the judgement of the High Court in its judgement ruled, '' The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.
A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not.'' The apex court concluded by saying, '' The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering an appeal against the judgement of the acquittal is to interfare only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgement is clearly unresonable and relevent and convincing material have been unjustifiabily eliminated in the process it is a compelling reason for interference.'' UNI SC GT AS2024