Presumption Of Innocence Gets Concretized: Orissa High Court Refuses To Reverse 30-Year-Old Acquittal

"If the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view, the appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible." Orissa High Court, in a judgment dated 25 August 2026, held that an appellate court cannot interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a different view of the evidence might be possible.

Dismissing a criminal appeal filed nearly three decades ago, a single bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra emphasized that interference is warranted only when the trial court's judgment suffers from "patent perversity" or is based on a clear misreading of material evidence.

The case originated from an incident in 1993 where the complainant alleged that the respondents forcibly encroached upon his land, destroyed paddy crops, and extended threats. Following a trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jajpur acquitted the accused persons under Section 427 of the IPC, citing gaps in the prosecution's evidence and the failure to examine material eyewitnesses. The complainant subsequently moved the High Court in 1996 challenging this acquittal.

The Question Of Appellate Interference

The primary question before the court was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a sustainable appreciation of evidence or if it warranted interference under the appellate jurisdiction. The court was also called upon to determine whether the failure to examine independent witnesses and the omission to produce contemporaneous police records justified the trial court's conclusion that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Reviews Scope Of Appellate Jurisdiction

The High Court observed that the trial court had meticulously analyzed the evidentiary gaps, particularly the failure of the prosecution to examine cited eyewitnesses who were present at the scene. The court noted that the credibility of witnesses must be tested on the "touchstone of the broad probabilities of the case" rather than mere corroboration.

Presumption Of Innocence Strengthened By Acquittal

The bench underscored that once a trial concludes in an acquittal, the initial presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is "reinforced" and "concretized." Consequently, the threshold for reversing such a judgment is significantly higher than in a trial setting. Justice Mishra remarked that appellate courts must exercise "great restraint" to avoid substituting the trial judge’s opinion with their own unless the findings are manifestly unsustainable.

No Scope To Re-Appreciate Evidence After Decades

The court further noted that after a lapse of more than three decades, it would be inappropriate to re-appreciate evidence solely to explore if an alternative conclusion could be reached. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, the court affirmed that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal jurisprudence.

"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are 'compelling and substantial reasons' for doing so. If the order is 'clearly unreasonable', it is a compelling reason for interference."

Ultimately, the High Court found that the trial court's judgment did not suffer from any patent perversity or impossibility. The bench concluded that since the trial court’s view was a "possible view" based on the evidence presented, there was no legal justification to overturn the acquittal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026